Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER: laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Portsmouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' INSURANCE (GOVERNMENT DECISION).

Captain HEILGERS: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to unemployment insurance for agricultural workers?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when he will introduce legislation to include agricultural workers within the unemployment insurance scheme; and whether the scheme will propose benefits higher than those suggested by the Unemployment Statutory Committee?

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been reached as to the insurance
of agricultural workers against unemployment?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The Government have given careful consideration to the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, and have decided to accept the principle of unemployment insurance for agriculture, but without necessarily committing themselves to the level of contributions and benefit proposed in the report. There are still a number of important matters to be settled, and I am not at present in a position to indicate when it may be possible to introduce legislation on the subject.

Captain HEILGERS: While appreciating that His Majesty's Government have accepted the principle, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that practice is more important than principle, and that the scheme, to be effective, will need to be in operation before January?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Now that the principle has been accepted, will there be a chance of the Bill being introduced this Session? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at least 26 contributions will be required before the scheme can actually commence, and that, unless the Bill passes fairly rapidly, it will be of no use to agricultural labourers during the coming winter?

Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member will read the second part of my answer, he will see that I said that I am not at present in a position to say when legislation will be introduced.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when we might expect it?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Will gardeners be included?

Mr. STANLEY: I could not give any details of that nature.

JUVENILES.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can furnish an estimate of the number of juveniles under the age of 16 now in employment; and whether, for comparison, he can state the corresponding numbers at the times of the censuses of 1931 and 1911, respectively?

Mr. STANLEY: Precise statistics on this point are not available, but it is estimated that the total number of juveniles under the age of 16 years in employment at the middle of April, 1935, exceeded the corresponding total at the date of the 1931 Census of Population by nearly 150,000. The information which would be required to enable a similar comparison to be made between the years 1931 and 1911 is not available, but the total numbers of juveniles aged under 16 years returned as gainfully occupied (including those unemployed) at the 1931 Population Census was 806,983, and at the 1911 Census was 1,083,214. The figure for 1911 included 148,023 juveniles aged under 14 years, whereas those for 1931 relate to juveniles of 14 and 15 years of age.

Mr. PIKE: Is it true that in many industrial areas there is a very grave shortage of juvenile labour; and can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect raising the school-leaving age to 16 will have on this problem?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter hardly arises on this question.

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the present approximate weekly cost of unemployment in Great Britain, including the charge upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the cost of unemployment assistance allowances, of Poor Law relief to the able-bodied, and of administration, but excluding interest on past debt, together with the corresponding total per annum?

Mr. STANLEY: The present expenditure on unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance allowances and Poor Law relief to the able-bodied within the scope of Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, for whom the Unemployment Assistance Board have not already become responsible, including cost of administration, is at the rate of about £107,000,000 a year, or approximately £2,050,000 a week.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On what figures for unemployment are those calculations based?

Mr. STANLEY: On the present weekly rate.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of
persons in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit and allowances from the unemployment assistance board at Wakefield, South Kirkby, Hemsworth, and Barnsley, respectively, at the latest available date?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a Table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Numbers of insured persons on the registers of the undermentioned Employment Exchanges at 15th April, 1935, with claims admitted for insurance benefit and unemployment allowances.

Insurance Benefit.
Unemployment Allowances.


Wakefield
2,711
2,099


South Kirkby
375
1,190


Barnsley
4,613
4,719

Separate figures are not available for Hemsworth, which is within the area served by the South Kirkby Exchange.

Mr. LAWSON: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed in the North-east, North-west, Scotland and Wales divisions, respectively?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in these four divisions at 15th April, 1935, were as shown below.

North Eastern
445,348


North Western
438,637


Scotland
320,954


Wales
212,038

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it meets with the approval of his Department that the Unemployment Assistance Board should take into calculation a disability pension in determining the amount of assistance to be granted to unemployed persons, as typified in the case of Mr. G. E. Lewes, of Adare Street, Ogmore Vale, who sustained a reduction of 3s. 6d. per week in his disability pension?

Mr. STANLEY: I am informed that disability pensions are treated by the Unemployment Assistance Board in accordance with the terms of the Act, which are repeated in the Regulations. If in any case it appears to an applicant that a determination has not been given in accordance with the Regulations, it is open to him to exercise the right of appeal which is given by the Act.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not that violate the undertaking that was given that these pensions would not be taken into consideration?

Mr. STANLEY: If there has been any case of violation of something that is included in an Act of Parliament, it is clear that, if the applicant takes his case to appeal, he will win it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We understood that the first 20s. of pension would be entirely excluded. This man is in receipt of a pension of 11s. 6d., and has suffered a deduction of 3s. 6d.

Mr. STANLEY: I think that the best course for the hon. Member to follow would be to apply to the Board and learn the exact facts of this particular case.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have the facts.

OVERTIME.

Mr. MANDER: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to discuss, or has discussed, at his industrial conferences the restriction of overtime with a view to providing more employment?

Mr. STANLEY: The question of overtime has formed, and will continue to form, one of the points of discussion in the meetings that I am holding with the principal industries in the country on the subject of the increase of employment.

Mr. LAWSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the employers, when he is discussing this matter with them, to the fact that in Scotland there are large numbers of mines which are drawing coal all day on Sundays, and therefore the men in those mines must be employed for more than the normal weekly period?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will, of course, be aware that the coalmining
industry is not one of the industries that I am interviewing in this connection. As he knows, it comes under my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in order to give a lead in this matter, to see that there is no undue overtime worked in Government Departments in the first place?

Mr. STANLEY: Would the hon. Member include Ministers?

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. LAWSON: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the system of appointed commissioners has completely failed to deal with the heavy unemployment in the special areas; and whether the Government propose to make any proposals in the near future to deal with this problem?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. I cannot accept the assumption on which the hon. Member's question is based. As I have frequently stated, the success of the Commissioners' appointments is not to be measured by the amount of employment immediately provided. The end in view is to promote the economic development and social improvement of the special areas, so that additional employment for the inhabitants may follow. I have already informed the House that the Commissioner for England and Wales will in due course submit a report on his work up to the end of June next.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Commissioners were appointed there has been no change in the amount of unemployment in these areas; and does not that point to the fact that the Commissioners are really doing nothing substantial?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir; it does not point to that fact at all. I have pointed out on many occasions that a large amount of the Commissioners' work must be experimental, and that its results can only be expected to show themselves after a period of time.

Miss WARD: Is not the policy of the National Government likely to be much more effective in dealing with unemployment than the policy of the Labour Government?

HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS.

Mr. PEARSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Health when he is likely to introduce legislation to safeguard the position of those whose pension rights and medical benefits are being affected by prolonged unemployment?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) yesterday.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell us whether the Bill which is to be introduced will cover the case where members have already lapsed from membership of approved societies as well as those whose rights are likely to be affected by prolonged unemployment?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I must not make a partial statement as to the contents of a Bill before it is introduced.

Mr. DENMAN (for Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM): 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether agricultural workers will be brought under a special scheme of unemployment insurance at an early date; and whether he is aware that thousands of these workers will be thrown out of employment if the majority report of the Sugar Beet Commission is adopted?

Mr. STANLEY: I have dealt with the first part of the question in reply to earlier questions to-day. As regards the second part I am aware that the sugar beet industry gives employment to some thousands of workers in this country. I can assure my hon. Friend that this and all other relevant considerations will be borne in mind by the Government in deciding upon the question of future sugar beet policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the report of the Commissioner of Prisons for 1933, which suggests that Borstal sentences would have been more appropriate for many of
the 2,253 youths between 16 and 21 sentenced to imprisonment in the period under review, any steps have been taken to ensure that the policy recommended is more extensively adopted by magistrates?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): In the circular letter on the treatment of young offenders which was sent to all Courts of Summary Jurisdiction on the 20th July, 1928, attention was called to the desirability of Borstal sentences for youths who are developing criminal habits and need training, and I hope that due note will be taken of the comment in the Report of the Prison Commissioners to which my hon. Friend refers; but the appropriate sentence in any individual case is a matter for the discretion of the Court, with which I have no power to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that persons who have had industrial disease are being refused employment when they sign that they have had it; and whether he will consider amending Section 9 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to make it clear that the word injury includes disease, so as to enable those who are unable to get employment through having had an accident or industrial disease shall be treated the same?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that colliery owners often refuse employment to men who have had nystagmus, but, as explained in previous replies, the issue is by no means a simple one, and in my opinion a full inquiry into this and other questions connected with the payment of compensation for this disease would be necessary before any amendment of the law could be usefully considered.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to institute an inquiry, in view of what has taken place in various parts of the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that the matter is being very carefully considered at the present time.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recent decision of the House of Lords, which is being followed in the lower courts, under which men suffering from industrial disease are excluded from having the same right as men suffering from accidents? That is the point on which I would like him to make some inquiry. They are not being treated on the same footing.

Mr. TINKER: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of many cases where injured workmen have failed to get compensation through their employer not being insured; and whether he will now consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Act to include compulsory insurance for all workmen?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of many such cases outside the coal mining industry, which was dealt with in the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act of last year, and I am afraid that in any event there would be no prospect of further legislation on the subject this year.

Mr. TINKER: Would the right hon. Gentleman do me the honour to read, if I send it to him, the report which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" of Monday last, of the remarks of one of His Majesty's Judges, who pointed out this error in the law and asked that it should be remedied? I shall be happy to send it to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONERS' COURTS (INQUIRY).

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to say when the committee he has set up to inquire into the general administration of coroners' courts will issue a statement of their inquiries; and whether he can give any information as to what organisation of workmen the committee will ask for evidence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The committee is engaged in taking evidence, and is not yet in a position to indicate when its report will be available. I am informed that the committee is in consultation with the Trade Union Congress General Council about the evidence to be heard on behalf of trade unions.

Oral Answers to Questions — WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. BOULTON: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to grant any form of compensation to J. Binney, of Sheffield, who has served a term of imprisonment on a charge for which he has now been found innocent.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am considering the matter, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE (PAY).

Mr. McENTEE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the initial basic rate of pay of the prison officer prior to June, 1920, was 34s. per week and afterwards reduced to 29s. per week, the maximum being lowered proportionately, in order to form a hypothetical basic rate of pay on which to calculate the war bonus; that the basic pay rates of all the subordinate staff were reduced by sums ranging from 5s. to 8s. per week; whether he is aware that the Prison Officers' Representative Board has many times pressed the Department to re-establish the real basic rates and apply the war bonus to them; and whether, in view of the disparity in the rates of pay of the prison staff as compared with police pay, he will take steps to re-establish the original rates and have the war bonus calculated on them for the purpose of consolidating the general remuneration of the prison staff on 1st July?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In September, 1918, prison officers were granted a permanent increase in pay of 10s. a week and their initial basic rate of pay then became 34s. a week. On the 1st April, 1919, the pay with bonus of an officer at the minimum of his scale was 54s. 10d. In 1920 a new scale of bonus, based on pre-war pay, was agreed on the National Whitley Council. In applying this arrangement to the pay of prison officers it was decided that the whole of the 10s. increase granted in September, 1918, could not be regarded as pre-war pay, but it was eventually agreed, after
a conference with the Prison Officers' Representative Board, that part should be so regarded, and that for the purpose only of calculating bonus a hypothetical minimum rate of 29s. to 43s. should be adopted, on the understanding that there would be a reversion to the basic rate of 34s. in the event of calculation for bonus being no longer necessary. The pay and bonus of prison officers have now been consolidated. The minimum rate of pay is 44s. 9d. a week, and will be 45s. 11d. from 1st July. The position has been fully explained to the Prison Officers' Representative Board on many occasions and I am unable to comply with the request in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTINUED EDUCATION.

Miss CAZALET: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of children leaving elementary schools in London in each of the last three years; and the approximate number who have gone on to some further form of education, including evening classes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As the answer contains a

Year ended
Number of children leaving Public Elementary Schools in London aged 14–15, excluding those who proceeded to further full-time education.
Year ended
Number of part-time students aged 15–16 in courses in London recognised by the Board.


31st March, 1931
…
42,232
31st March, 1932
…
20,107


31st March, 1932
…
33,058
31st March, 1933
…
14,092


31st March, 1933
…
26,910
31st March, 1934
…
11,958

It will be understood that the figures in the fourth column of the above table include students in attendance at London institutions who come from other areas. On the other hand a certain number of London students attend institutions outside the administrative county of London.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Sir JOHN POWER): 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can furnish an estimate of the number of children over the age of compulsory school attendance who are continuing to receive education in secondary, central, and elementary schools, respectively?

number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total number of children leaving public elementary schools in London during the last three years and the number going on to full-time further education are as follows:


Year ended
Total number of leavers.
Total number of leaving for full-time further education.


31st March, 1932.
51,137
8,752


31st March, 1933.
44,524
7,835


31st March, 1934.
64,123
8,516

I am unable to give exact particulars of the number of children leaving the public elementary schools in London who proceeded to some form of further part-time education including evening classes, but the following figures may be of interest in this connection:

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: On the 31st March, 1934, the number of pupils in grant-earning secondary schools in England and Wales over the age of 14 years was 211,467. I regret that the term "central" school is not used with sufficient accuracy to enable statistics to be compiled for the schools so called, and the Board have no precise figures for the number of children who remain in public elementary schools beyond the date at which they become legally exempt from school attendance. On the 31st March, 1934, however, the latest date for which figures are at present available, there were on the registers of public
elementary schools in England and Wales 53,888 children who had attained the age of 14 years and 3 months.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BRICKLAYERS AND BRICKS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether there is any shortage of bricklayers or bricks in connection with any of the housing operations now in progress; and, if there be such a shortage, whether any steps are being taken to make it good?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of any general shortage in the supply of bricks. I have received reports of some difficulty in obtaining bricklayers in a few districts. The matter is receiving my consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

MATERIALS.

Mr. HICKS: 26 and 27.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in view of the disclosures in regard to the use by building speculators of inferior materials in house building and the victimisation of house purchasers consequent thereon, the Government is proposing to appoint a committee of inquiry into the matter;
(2) whether, in view of the complaints now being made in all parts of the country by persons who have been led to purchase houses built of bad and unsuitable materials, under what amounts to false pretences, he is considering how to meet these complaints and to redress the wrong done to these persons?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not at present aware of the disclosures to which the hon. Member refers or of any general complaints such as those he mentions. As I informed him in reply to a previous question, I am prepared to make inquiry into any cases brought to my notice in which the nature of the defects in houses purchased affords prima facie evidence that by-laws are not being enforced. I am not satisfied of the utility for any other action.

Mr. HICKS: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman consider it would be proper to take in order to invite him to make the necessary inquiry? Would representations from tenants who have been victims of this sort of thing, or from
municipal councillors who have had experience of it, made to the Department be considered adequate for the Minister to make the inquiry?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member knows that in the future, as in the past, I should be most willing and eager to listen to any information which he could bring to my attention on the subject.

Mr. HICKS: Do I understand that, if the information is brought, the Minister is willing to take the necessary steps to have an inquiry? In view of the disclosures which have taken place in the Press and in the country, is he willing to consider the setting up of a committee of inquiry in order to verify the facts?

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Gentleman will call my attention to any information he has at his disposal on the subject, I will certainly discuss it with him and consider what steps will be appropriate.

Mr. HICKS: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the adoption of such measures and regulations as will ensure that before building societies loan money for house purchase the house or houses will be surveyed in question upon the basis of a minimum standard as regards materials, durability, and suitability?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir, it is not in my power to regulate the operations of building societies in the manner suggested.

Mr. HICKS: Is it not within the power of the Minister to guide the building societies, and is he willing so far as the purchase of houses is concerned, to take steps under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, that is to say, that before money is advanced under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act the Minister shall be satisfied that the houses are to be built of the standard commonly approved as being ordinarily durable for the purpose for which they are erected?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is of the opinion that building societies do not do what is asked in the question?

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the building societies of this country are scrupulously careful in respect of the conditions
and methods under which moneys are loaned and that the houses built are suitable for the working people of this country?

Sir H. YOUNG: The supplementary question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) is another question of which I should have had notice, and, in reply to the second and third supplementary questions, undoubtedly it is in the interests of the building society to consider the value of the security. It would be very foolish of it indeed if it did not.

BUILDING BY-LAWS.

Mr. BOSSOM: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the number of the separate housing authorities; for how many does he approve building regulations or by-laws; and how many have their individual Building Acts?

Sir H. YOUNG: The number of separate housing authorities is 1,554. All those outside London are also local authorities for the purposes of the Public Health Acts and therefore empowered to make by-laws requiring my confirmation. As my hon. Friend is aware, building in the County of London is mainly governed by the London Building Act: out side London there are six local authorities in whose areas building is governed by Building Acts instead of by the normal procedure of by-laws under the Public Health Acts.

Mr. THORNE: Is there any uniformity in the building regulations and by-laws, and does the Minister not think that it is time to have model building by-laws and to insist upon the local authorities carrying them out?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is no doubt acquainted with the model by-laws issued by my Department, but he will also no doubt recognise that local conditions vary.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (SUPERVISION).

Mr. BOSSOM: 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many of the housing authorities have their housing work designed and the construction supervised by the local borough surveyor or borough engineer, and how many employ registered architects for that purpose?

Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that this information is not available.

SLUM CLEARANCE, HANLEY.

Mr. HALES: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the demolition of 16 houses situate in George Street, Hanley, owned by one Elijah Jones, on which there was an existing mortgage of £1,128; and whether he will say what compensation can be made, having regard to the fact that the property was in good tenantable repair before the order for demolition was made?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. These houses were included in a Clearance Order submitted to me under the Housing Act, 1930, by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and confirmed by me with certain modifications in February, 1934. The properties were unfit for habitation. There is no legal authority for the payment of compensation to the owner for the demolition of these properties.

Mr. HALES: But, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this man spent everything necessary upon this property to put it into good order, that his whole life's savings disappeared in a night, and that the security on which the money was advanced has now disappeared, and he is left with this intolerable debt for the rest of his life?

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend will recognise that I cannot give a full account of a particular case in reply to a supplementary question, but it was the case that, in this particular instance, the premises were totally unfit for human habitation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: When they took over the houses should not they have taken over the debt?

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).

Mr. DAVID MASON: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House of the taxation per head in the United Kingdom for 1913–44 and that for 1933–34, also the corresponding figures for France, Germany, Italy, and the United States of America?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give approximately for each of the
past five years the taxation in sterling per head of the population in the United Kingdom and also in the United States of America, Germany, France, and Italy?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables containing such information as is available. I feel bound, however, to point out that international comparisons of this

Taxation per head in 1934–14 and 1933–34.


—
1913 or 1913–14.
1934 or 1933–34.


Central.
Local.
Total.
Central.
Local.
Total.


United Kingdom.
£3 11s. 5d.
£1 16s. 1d.
£5 7s. 6d.
£15 4s. 8d.
£3 12s. 1d.
£18 16s. 9d.


France
…
Frs. 100.36
‡
‡
958.5
‡
‡


Germany
…
Rms. 24.34
35.93
60.41
105.44
57.41
162.85


Italy
…
Lire 56.32*
‡
‡
369.3
‡
‡


United States
$6.96
15.74
22.70
23.50
50.9†
74.4


* For Italy in 1913–14 the net yield of monopolies is notavailable and the gross yield has been included.


† For 1932, being the latest available year.


‡ Not available.




Taxation per head (Central Government only).


—
1930 or 1929–30.
1931 or 1930–31.
1932 or 1931–32.
1933 or 1932–33.
1934 or 1933–34.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


United Kingdom
…
…
14
16
2
15
7
0
15
18
2
15
14
0
15
4
8


United States*
…
…
6
2
7
4
6
11
3
17
6
4
4
3
4
15
3


Germany*
…
…
…
7
1
7
6
17
8
6
16
6
7
0
4
7
14
4


France
…
…
…
9
17
5
10
4
6
11
7
3
11
15
1
12
9
10


Italy*
…
…
…
4
9
4
4
11
5
5
5
9
5
15
5
6
2
2


*Note.—Monopolies (other than Postal, Telegraph and Telephone) and in Italy lotteries are included in respect of their net yield. The United States tax revenue for 1933–34, as given above, includes 11s. 5d. per head for agricultural processing taxes.

Subsidies by the Central Government to local revenues are included.

Conversions to sterling have been made in each case at the average rate of exchange for the relevant year.

State and Local Taxation.


The only published official information of which I am aware is:


—
1930 or 1929–30.
1931 or 1930–31.
1932 or 1931–32.
1933 or 1932–33.
1934 or 1933–34.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


United Kingdom
…
…
3
17
8
3
14
7
3
12
5
3
11
3
3
12
1


United States
…
…
10
17
5
11
6
10
11
6
10
10
9
2
—


Germany
…
…
…
3
5
4
3
7
11
3
12
0
4
4
1
—

kind are in many respects misleading and should be interpreted subject to numerous qualifications. Further in connection with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) I should add that the expression of the tax revenue of one country in terms of the currency of another yields a result of doubtful significance.

Following are the tables:

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (MILK SUPPLIES).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether there are still some counties where producers are unable to qualify for the Milk Board's grade A scheme owing to the lack of arrangements for veterinary surgeons, inspectors, etc.; if so, what are the counties which do not give facilities for the production of this better quality milk?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware that there are any counties in which milk producers are unable to qualify for admission to the list of accredited producers for the reason suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. A producer can so qualify by obtaining from the licensing authority a Grade A Milk Producer's licence and for this purpose he may employ any veterinary surgeon who is nominated by the authority with my concurrence. In nearly every county in England and Wales the county council now exercise their powers to grant these licences, but where a county council decline to do this I am prepared to confer the necessary power to grant licences on those district councils who apply for it.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does not my right hon. Friend think there would be greater uniformity in administration if the county council had the doing of these things instead of the district council?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is now time that the Government insisted that every county council or responsible authority should be obliged to employ veterinary surgeons so that they can carry out the examinations in connection with the production of this milk?

Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to the supplementary question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I would say greater uniformity, but the desirability of uniformity may be a matter of argument. I would inform the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Bench that I have to act within the powers given to me by Parliament.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a deputation following the issue of the report of the Milk Committee he did, on behalf of himself and the Minister of Agriculture, make a definite promise that they
would deal with the question of veterinary inspection and so forth?

Sir H. YOUNG: An adequate answer to that question would involve reference to the proceedings in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR FUEL (TAXATION).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take in view of the rapidly increasing amount of alcohol, produced from imported molasses, used as motor fuel and the need to protect the revenue derived from the duty on hydrocarbon oils?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not consider that any action is necessary at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Brigadier-General NATION: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of British industries, he will take steps to ensure that the Import Duties Advisory Committee shall communicate to applicants their reasons for refusing are commendation for an increased duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Import Duties Act lays no such requirement upon the Advisory Committee, and I should not feel justified in seeking to interfere with the discretion of that body, which within the terms of the Act is responsible for settling its own procedure.

Brigadier-General NATION: Are there no means by which a Member of this House can ascertain the reason why the applications are being refused?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One might ask the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but I rather doubt whether they would answer the question.

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, BRUSSELS (BRITISH PAVILION).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 46.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can make any statement as to the amount of business which has been transacted at the British Pavilion in the International Exhibition at Brussels?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The International Exhibition at Brussels was inaugurated by His Majesty King Leopold on 27th April and will remain open for six months. The British Pavilion was formally opened on 10th May. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that warm appreciation of the British Pavilion has been expressed and that many thousands have visited it each day since the opening.

Captain MACDONALD: Are there no results so far as orders are concerned?

Lieut. Colonel COLVILLE: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is a little premature. The Pavilion has only been open six days. There is a difference between an exhibition and a trade fair where it is possible to give an estimate of the business done. Having visited the exhibition I have little doubt of its value for British prestige and British trade.

EXPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the exports of British products and of re-exports for the following years: 1929, 1931, and 1934, the figures for 1934 being calculated on a gold basis?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As the answer includes a number of figures I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but as regards the figures for 1934 I am giving the recorded values, since no accurate calculation on a gold basis is practicable and any estimate made would have no significance in relation to the figures for the earlier years.

Following is the answer:

The declared value of the exports and re-exports of merchandise from the United Kingdom during the years 1929, 1931 and 1934, was as follows:


Year.
Exports.


United Kingdom goods.
Imported merchandise.



£
£


1929
729,349,322
109,701,828


1931
390,621,598
63,867,549


1934
396,107,544
51,263,472

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in the cases where trade agreements have been made, on how many specific articles the duties now levied on British exports to these countries are lower than in 1930 and in how many cases the duties are higher than in that year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The headings and sub-headings in the tariffs of the countries with which trade agreements have been made run into thousands. The labour involved in making the comparisons of the rates of duty in 1930 and at present on particular articles could not be justified, especially as no useful conclusions could be drawn from such comparisons, which would ignore the volume of trade covered by each heading.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Would not the figures show whether trade agreements have been successful in reducing duties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I think they would almost certainly do that.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Would not that be useful?

Mr. MACLAY: If the future policy of the Government to increase world trade is to be one of tariff bargaining, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of throwing out some warning to those industries which are likely to be made the bargaining counters in this policy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a different question to the one on the Order Paper, and I should like to have notice of it.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not agriculture always used as a bargaining counter, and has it not suffered in conseqence?

IMPORTS (UNDER-INVOICING).

Mr. HALES (for Mr. HALL, CAINE): 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the number of cases of intentional under-invoicing of imported goods which have been recorded by the Customs and Excise during the past year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The total number of cases of under-declarations of value of imported goods in respect of which legal proceedings, were
taken or compromise-penalties imposed by the Customs and Excise Department during the year ended 31st December, 1934, was 167.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of small holdings over one acre which have been created in each of the last three years; and what is the present aggregate total acreage of such small holdings in the United Kingdom according to the latest statistics in his possession?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the number of agricultural holdings over one acre and not exceeding 50 acres in Great Britain in each of the last three years, and also the number of statutory small holdings provided in each of those years. I regret I am unable to give particulars of the total number of small holdings of all kinds created in these years. With regard to the last part of the question, the acreage of agricultural land comprised in the various size groups of holdings is not available in respect of the years 1932–34, but the aggregate total acreage of statutory small holdings in Great Britain on 31st December, 1934, was approximately 1,100,000 acres. Corresponding figures for Northern Ireland are not available.

Following is the statement:


Year.
Number of agricultural holdings over one acre and not exceeding 50 acres returned in June in Great Britain *
Number of statutory holding created in Great Britain.


1932
299,932
301


1933
297,758
333


1934
292,847
423


* These figures include parcels of land which are separately returned but in many cases comprise areas of accommodation and other land which would not normally be regarded as agricultural or small holdings. The number of parcels of land of this description cannot be given.

POTATO RIDDLE REGULATIONS.

Sir G. FOX: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Oxfordshire and Berkshire have suffered severely from the operation of the flat-rate riddle in relation to potato riddle regulations; whether, as an undertaking has been given that the riddle should be raised according to the size of the potatoes grown in any district, he will say what is the reason it has not been possible to put this undertaking into operation this year; and when the necessary action will be taken?

Mr. ELLIOT: During the period 6th December, 1934, to 6th March, 1935, the riddle regulations prescribed by the Potato Marketing Board provided for a smaller minimum mesh for some varieties in the case of certain districts (including Oxfordshire and Berkshire) than in other parts of the country. In March last, after a very careful examination of the supply position, the board prescribed uniform riddle regulations for the whole country. Any representations producers may wish to make for a variation of these regulations can, I think, best be considered by the Marketing Board which itself represents producers.

ACCREDITED HERD SCHEME.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many producers have been enrolled in the accredited herd grade A scheme of the Milk Board; and how many have qualified for the Government attested herd scheme

Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is 3,300; and, to the second, that 20 herds belonging to 16 producers have been attested.

Brigadier-General BROWN: As very few people are using the Government scheme would it not be better to give the money to the Milk Board to encourage the scheme which is going to do well?

Mr. ELLIOT: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the two schemes are not entirely comparable. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland are considering an alteration of the scheme to make it more attractive.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Major CARVER: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any indication of the amount of deductions charged against milk producers now as compared with similar deductions when the Milk Marketing Board took over?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are not there a large number of small milk producers in Scotland who have been ruined and put on public assistance?

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. and learned Friend had better put that question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Following is the reply:

The average wholesale prices, pool prices and producer-retailers' contributions per gallon for the six months periods ended 31st March, 1934, and 31st March, 1935, respectively, are as follow:


—
October, 1933—March, 1934.
October, 1934—March, 1935.


S. E. region.
Other regions.
All regions.



d.
d.
d.


Wholesale Liquid Price.
16
15.5
16.5


Pool Price (un weighted average).
14.46
13.48
13.84


Producer-retailers Contributions (un-weighted average).
1.73
2.33

The price received by producers (other than producer-retailers) is the pool price, less deductions for transport and transit risks. The deduction for transit risks was ½d. per gallon in each period. I have no information as to the average deduction for transport.

Major CARVER: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what additional percentage of milk is being handled by the Milk Marketing Board compared with the amount handled when it started its operations?

Mr. ELLIOT: The average daily quantity of milk sold under wholesale contracts during the six months ended 31st March, 1935, showed an increase of 17¾ per cent. on the average daily quantity in the corresponding period of the previous year. The quantity sold under wholesale contracts in April, 1935, was 23 per cent. more than that sold in April, 1934. The information is not available which would permit a comparison between the volume of sales by producer-retailers in the six months ended 31st March, 1934 and 1935, respectively, and therefore I am unable to give a figure representing the percentage increase in the total supplies of milk coming under the Milk Marketing Scheme then and now.

Captain HEILGERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increase is caused by the disastrous state of the meat market?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have no information as to that. Some of it undoubtedly is caused by the increased consumption of milk in schools.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the steps that are now being taken to increase the consumption of liquid milk are comparable and adequate in view of the colossal increase in the output of milk?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think there is a considerable increase in the consumption of liquid milk, but I should not like to be taken as saying that it is adequate.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not a considerable amount of milk being destroyed because it cannot be used and it is not allowed to be given away?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. Not a single gallon of milk.

BEEF AND VEAL (CONSUMPTION).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the consumption of beef and veal per head of the population of the United Kingdom in 1924, 1929, and 1934?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures desired by the hon. Member.

Following is the statement:

The consumption of beef and veal per head in Great Britain in 1924, 1929 and
in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1934, is set out in the following table. The information available in regard to Northern Ireland is insufficient to give figures of consumption for the United Kingdom.


Period.
Beef.
Veal.
Beef and Veal.



lb.
lb.
lb.


Year 1924
68.6
2.4
71.0


Year 1929
66.7
2.3
69.0


June, 1933 to May, 1934. (a)
63.5
2.5
66.0


(a) Particulars in respect of the calendar year 1934 are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (CITRUS FRUIT).

Captain STRICKLAND: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Government of Palestine at present possesses a surplus of some £5,000,000 and that the maintenance of the territory's prosperity depends to a substantial extent on the expansion of the markets for Palestinian citrus fruit, he will consider the desirability of permitting the administration to participate in a scheme for the large-scale advertising abroad of this fruit?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Government of Palestine already participates in an advertising scheme of the kind mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, by making advances free of interest. Any proposals for the extension of the scheme would be matters for the Palestine Government to consider in the first place at the request of the industry itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OCEAN COLLIERY, NANTYMOEL (LOST DETONATOR).

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the report by one of his inspectors of a lost detonator at Ocean Colliery, Nanty-moel; and whether he will make inquiries into the accuracy of the report and make a statement upon this serious matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Full inquiries have been made but unfortunately it is not possible to discover with absolute certainty whether a detonator was lost or not. The whole question turns on whether the case which a certain fireman, on the evening of 20th March, took belowground contained five detonators, as he assumed, or only four. He certainly fired only three shots and brought only one detonator back, but he had not checked the number of detonators in the case and the storeman is unable to say definitely that he put in five. The road in which the fifth detonator must have been dropped, if in fact there was a fifth, has been most carefully searched on several occasions without result, and I understand that the workmen in the district are now satisfied in that respect. The fireman himself was temporarily suspended for not checking the number of detonators he received, and arrangements have since been made by which each fireman authorised to fire shots will sign after checking at the store. I am, however, making further inquiries into the system adopted at this colliery for the issues of detonators and explosives.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will it be possible for the Secretary for Mines to introduce some better method, through his inspectorate, to check the detonators and the amount of powder that is issued from time to time to the miners? A number of cases of this kind have come to my notice in which there have been prosecutions and fines have been paid. Could not the inspectorate tighten up the by-law machinery and have these matters checked?

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consult me and put another question down when we see the result of the inquiries.

WEST CANNOCK COLLIERY (ACCIDENT).

Mrs. WARD: 48.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any information about the accident which happened on Monday at the West Cannock Colliery, in which three mine workers lost their lives?

Mr. MAINWARING: 49.
asked the Secretary for Mines, in relation to the accident at the No. 3 Pit, West Cannock Colliery, Staffs, involving the deaths of
three men, what system of packing or roof control was in operation at the conveyor face in question; and is he satisfied with the precautions taken?

Mr. E. BROWN: I deeply regret that falls of roof, which occurred on Monday morning at West Cannock No. 3 Colliery, resulted in the loss of three lives. The falls occurred in a longwall conveyor face in a seam 3 feet 9 inches thick having a strong rock roof, supported by six-yard packs, six yards apart, and by posts and lids set at intervals of 3½ to 4 feet. Bars were used where considered necessary and were in use on the rise side of a fault which crossed the face. A slight fall occurred at that point, pinning two men by the legs. Rescue work was immediately started and was nearly completed, one of the men having actually been released, when a much heavier fall buried both men and one of the rescue party. The general system of support had been in force for a number of years, and had been considered to be satisfactory, but in view of the accident this aspect of the matter is being further investigated.

WOODHALL COLLIERY, CALDERBANK (FLOODING).

Mrs. SHAW: 50.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the flooding at Woodhall Colliery, Calderbank, Lanarkshire, the result of which caused the death of two men?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have had a preliminary report on the inrush of water which occurred in the South Lower Drumgray section of the Woodhall No. 3 Colliery, on 29th April, and I deeply regret that it resulted in the loss of two lives, in spite of gallant efforts on the part of the undermanager and others to rescue the men concerned. The workings in the section affected were advancing between wastes on either side; the rise side of the workings was keeping in touch with the waste, and water released there by means of a bore hole was being carried away as the workings progressed. The cause of the sudden inrush cannot yet be determined. The water has been pumped out and the work of clearing the debris is proceeding; I shall receive a full report on the occurrence when that work is complete.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Can the Minister say whether they were carrying out regulations of the Coal Mines Act with bore holes when the accident occurred?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot say yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 51.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of licences granted and the total number applied for under the Petroleum (Production) Act, and the amount received by the Treasury in respect of such licences?

Mr. E. BROWN: No formal applications for licences under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, can be made until the regulations issued in accordance with Section 6 of the Act come into force on 17th June next, if Parliament agrees. These regulations were made yesterday and copies have been laid on the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS, MANCHESTER.

Mr. CHORLTON: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport the list of street improvements for which the city council of Manchester have applied for grants in assistance; and how much the total amount comes to?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): With the permission of my hon. Friend the information which he desires will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The Manchester City Council have applied for grants in respect of the following schemes of new road construction or widening:

Queen's Road bridge, Miles Platting, reconstruction.
A new by-pass road to the east of the city.
A new by-pass road to the west of the city.
Princess Road extension.
Irk Valley road construction.
Cannon Street widening.
1887
Hardman Street widening.
Middleton Road.
Wythenshaw-Toft Road widening.

The estimated total cost of these schemes amounts to nearly £4 millions.

RAILWAY BRIDGE, MILES PLATTING.

Mr. CHORLTON: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet given his final assent to the plans for the removal of the dangerous railway bridge at Miles Platting Station; and, if so, when can the work commence?

Captain A. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is to-day informing the high way authority that he is prepared, subject to the usual conditions, to make a grant of 75 per cent. towards the cost of the reconstruction of this bridge. He understands that the work can be commenced within four months of the date upon which the scheme is finally approved.

LONDON TRANSPORT FACILITIES (SCHOLARS' FARES).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Passenger Transport Board is restricting the privilege of cheap travel to certain selected schools; what were the principles upon which this selection was carried out; and whether it is intended to permit this public utility company thus to distinguish between different types of educational institutions?

Captain A. HUDSON: My hon. Friend is informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that, in consultation with the education authorities, they have standardised the terms and conditions of special facilities for scholars, which previously varied widely in different areas, but were never applicable to scholars attending all schools. He understands that under the existing arrangements the general scope of the facilities which existed prior to the formation of the board has been widened and that they are applicable to scholars attending any elementary or secondary school recognised by the Board of Education. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a memorandum describing the arrangements in detail.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Will the hon. and gallant Member point out to tine Minister of Transport that there are several types
of scholars who do not receive the reduced fares and ask the Minister to look into the matter more carefully before making his decision.

Captain HUDSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me the details of any case he has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS.

Mr. BOSSOM: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount expended annually by the nation on new buildings and on repairs to existing structures; and how much of this is spent under the direction of Government Departments and local authorities?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Comprehensive information as to the value of building construction and repairs is available only for those years in respect of which a census of production has been taken. The latest census relates to the year 1930, and the total value of all work done on buildings during that year is estimated as having been between £235 million and £240 million. I am unable to indicate what proportion of this total was expended under the direction of Government Departments and local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

WATER SUPPLY, COUSLAND.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now give the House information as to the progress in the scheme for the provision of a proper water supply in the village of Cousland, in Midlothian?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Offers obtained for the supply of the necessary pumping plant and of electrical power are at present under the consideration of the interests concerned in the improvement of the water supply in the village, that is to say, the County Council, the Stair Estate and the British Portland Cement Manufacturing Company Limited.

Captain RAMSAY: In view of the fact that this matter has been dragging on for a great many months, will the Secretary of State see that something is done within a reasonable space of time?

Sir G. COLLINS: I agree that the matter has been hanging for some time, and, if it is still delayed, I will take steps to bring it to ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CONTRACTORS (MOTOR DRIVERS' HOURS).

Mr. THORNE: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Messrs. Wimpey and Company, of Hammersmith, are contractors under his Department that they have been recently convicted for offences under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for having worked a lorry driver excessive hours and failed to cause records of journeys to be kept; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. So far as the Post Office is concerned, appropriate action has already been taken; and assurances have been received from the firm mentioned that in future the terms of their contract with the Post Office will be rigidly adhered to.

TELEGRAPH CLERKS (RETIREMENT).

Mr. CLEARY: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telegraph clerks employed in the Post Office who made application to retire at the age of 55 in accordance with the circular issued in October, 1934; how many Liverpool applicants have retired already; and what decision has been reached regarding the remaining number of applicants?

Sir K. WOOD: 127 sorting clerks and telegraphists and telegraphists made application for retirement. Authority has already been given for the retirement of four out of the nine who applied at Liverpool and it is hoped to reach a decision regarding the remaining applications very shortly.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Postmaster-General see that these pensioners do not become attendants at cinemas and keep other people out of a job?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (FLOOD LIGHTING).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 66.
asked the First Commissioner of Works
whether it will be possible for the public buildings which were flood-lit during the Jubilee celebrations again to be lighted on Empire Day, 24th May, Saturday 25th May, and the Queen's birthday, 26th May?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I regret that I have no funds available for the purpose suggested, and that the wiring of some of the buildings has been removed. In any case, it seems undesirable to reinstitute any general scheme of flood-lighting at a date so close to that of Jubilee week. Arrangements are being made to floodlight St. James's Park on the nights of 4th to 7th June inclusive, during the annual congress of the Institution of Gas Engineers, but the cost is not being borne by my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (NEWFOUNDLAND).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs why Newfoundland was not represented at the Jubilee celebrations or the informal conferences with overseas representatives?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): In so far as the question of formal representation of His Majesty's oversea Dominions has arisen at ceremonies forming part of the Jubilee celebrations, the representation of Newfoundland has, in view of the present constitutional position, been undertaken by myself as Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The same would apply to the informal conversations with Dominion Prime Ministers if any question specially affecting Newfoundland should arise. I may add that we have welcomed the participation in the Jubilee celebrations generally of a number of His Majesty's subjects from Newfoundland who were in London.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (GUNNER'S DISCHARGE).

Mr. MAXTON: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Private W. H. Walker, a Territorial soldier, with an unblemished record of service in the 9th Battalion, Royal Scots, and in the Field Artillery, who has been
dismissed by his commanding officer without court-martial for reasons which it is not in the public interest to disclose, will be afforded any opportunity to appeal against his dismissal?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): No, Sir. A Territorial soldier who is discharged on the ground that his services are no longer required has no right of appeal.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that this man must go through the rest of his life with the stigma attaching to him that he has been dismissed from the Territorial Force for reasons which are so grave and disgraceful that they cannot be mentioned publicly, and that he has no possible way of removing this stigma on his character?

Mr. HACKING: I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing irregular at all in this. This dismissal is part of the terms of his engagement. When a soldier engages on the attestation form he is asked:
Are you willing to be attested for service in the Territorial Army for a term of four years provided His Majesty should so long require your services?
His Majesty does not require his services and so he is discharged.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that strike the right hon. Gentleman as either being fair play to the man concerned or a fair answer to me as a Member of this House?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, I think that in both cases the answer is satisfactory.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that there are many people in this country who believe that it is something discreditable to serve in His Majesty's Forces, and is it not rather remarkable that those who share these views should object to a man being dismissed?

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the cause of the dismissal? Our impression is that it was because he took part in a march, and, if that impression be mistaken, surely it wants clearing away?

Lieut. - Colonel CHARLES MacANDREW: Is it not the case that a Territorial unit commanding officer is entitled to ask men to resign on the
ground that they are unlikely to become efficient soldiers, and that it is no disgrace on them at all?

Mr. MAXTON: Is the Minister aware that this man has a clean and good record of service in the Territorial Force? I must give intimation that because of the unsatisfactory nature of the handling of this matter I shall raise it at a very early opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the Locarno pact could only become effective after Germany became a member of the League of Nations, it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government, following the withdrawal of Germany from the League, to adhere to the pact or to amend the same in co-operation with the other signatories to it?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): While it is the case that the Treaty of Locarno provided for the entry of the treaty into force as soon as all the ratifications should have been deposited and Germany had become a member of the League, the treaty contains no provision for its amendment or alteration should any of its signatories at any time cease to be members of the League. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 7th November, 1933, it is the view of His Majesty's Government, after consulting the law officers of the Crown, that the withdrawal from the League of any party to the Treaty of Locarno does not of itself and by itself involve the release of all parties from their obligations under the treaty. I would remind the hon. Member that by the Anglo-Italian Declaration embodied in the resolution of the recent Stresa Conference, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom formally reaffirmed all their obligations under the Treaty of Locarno and declared their intention, should the need arise, faithfully to fulfil them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that no decision can be taken unless the decision is unanimous, and that as Germany, one of the signatories, is no longer a member of the League, no
unanimous resolution can be passed? How can there be any validity, then, in the terms of the Locarno Pact?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. In the first place, of course, Germany is still a member of the League. Her withdrawal does not become complete until October. In the second place, as I have already made plain, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the withdrawal from the League of any party to the Treaty of Locarno does not of itself and by itself involve the release of all parties from their obligations under that Treaty.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any possibility of making all the European countries one unit, which would obviate a lot of trouble.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENINSULAR WAR MEMORIAL, SPAIN.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the monument, erected in 1923 by the Spanish Government in honour of Wellington's Army, on the Castle Hill of St. Sebastian, has been recently much injured and mutilated and whether he will make representations to the present Spanish Government urging that it shall be repaired and guarded for the future?

Mr. EDEN: It was brought to my right hon. Friend's notice last year that the cemetery at St. Sebastian containing the graves of British soldiers who fell in the Peninsular Wars, which is situated in a lofty and remote position above the town, had fallen into neglect. I am glad to say that the British Vice-Consul at St. Sebastian has now obtained from the municipal authorities an assurance that this neglect will be repaired. I am aware that the monument, which was erected by the Spanish Government from stonework which had previously formed part of another monument, has suffered damage largely from the nature of the stone and the exposed position of the cemetery, but it does not appear to be for His Majesty's Government to suggest to the Spanish Government that they should undertake the restoration of the monument.

Sir C. OMAN: Would it surprise my right hon. Friend to know that witnesses who have been there quite recently say that it is not being repaired?

Mr. EDEN: No, it would not, but I must explain that as the monument was put up by the Spanish Government I do not think it is for us to ask them to keep it in repair

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the monument erected at Glen Finnan to Charles Edward is also in a bad state of repair?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINES (DEFAULTERS' IMPRISONMENT).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to implement the report of the committee on imprisonment by courts of summary jurisdiction in default of payment of fines and other sums of money by legislation; and, if so, when such legislation will be introduced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope that a Bill to give effect to certain of the recommendations of the committee may be introduced in the course of this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (PROTECTION).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON (for Mr. DINGLE FOOT): 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether the contemplated regulations on protection against air-raids include any form of compulsory drilling of the civil population?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No such regulation is at present in contemplation, and any regulation which might be made in future would need to be considered in relation to the circumstances existing at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL TREATMENT).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether, as persons insured under the National Health Insurance scheme are ineligible for dental treatment until they have been paying contributions for over four years, and in view of the importance of early treatment in dental cases, especially among young persons, he will consider the alteration of these regulations?

Sir H. YOUNG: Under the National Health Insurance Acts dental benefit is not included in the statutory benefits to which all insured persons are entitled, but is an additional benefit which may be
provided by an Approved Society having a disposable surplus as a result of a quin-quennial valuation. An insured person becomes entitled to dental benefit at the beginning of the third year following that in which he joins a Society providing the benefit. In fixing this waiting period regard has been had to the considerations referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend but I am afraid that any further shortening of the period would be open to serious objection not only on administrative and financial grounds but also from the point of view of equitable distribution of the surplus amongst the members of the Societies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS (SNOW CLEARANCE).

Mr. GROVES: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the conditions under which snow clearing is operated by local authorities by what industrial award the rates of pay and hours worked are decided; and whether the Exchequer contributes to the cost of such emergency work and, if so, to what extent?

Sir H. YOUNG: Snow clearing by local authorities is usually performed by the ordinary street cleansing staff with such casual labour as may be needed. I am not aware of any Industrial Award concerning the conditions of work of men so engaged. Direct grants in respect of expenditure on snow clearing on roads in London and the County Boroughs and on unclassified roads in counties were discontinued by the Local Government Act, 1929, under which block grants are now made to the authorities. Similar expenditure on classified roads in county districts in the interests of traffic is, however, eligible for direct grant from the Road Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (SEAMEN'S TOBACCO).

Mr. TINKER (for Mr. KIRK-WOOD): 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it has long been the custom for sailors in the mercantile marine, as in the Navy, to have their tobacco out of bond and free of duty; that certain shipowners are now taking stocks of tobacco from bond at a cost of about 3s. per pound and selling it to their men at as much as 9s., as if
they had paid duty on it; and whether he will take steps to secure that the benefit of the concession shall always go to the sailors and not be turned into a source of profit for shipowners?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will give me instances of such charges that he considers excessive, I will make inquiries. I would, however, remind him that I have no power to regulate the prices charged for tobacco on board ship.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that this money is ostensibly collected as revenue, a tax on tobacco, and should not the shipowners be compelled to account for it to the Inland Revenue? At any rate, they should get no subsidy for playing such a dirty trick on the seamen.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (LOANS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to assist economic restoration in Argentina, he will inquire of the Argentine Government if they would invite British financial experts to advise them how to deal with the fact that few persons in Argentina invest in Argentine loans; and will he suggest to the Argentine Government that the creation of a local market for Argentine loans would benefit Argentina in that such loans as have been floated hitherto in New York and London could, in future, be absorbed in Argentina and so prevent exchange being used for debt service?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think that this is a matter on which it would be appropriate to offer advice or make suggestions to the Argentine Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Monday: Conclusion of Report stage and Third Reading of the Housing Bill.

Tuesday: Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday: Supply (Fifth Allotted Day), Committee, Class I, Vote IV
(Treasury and Subordinate Departments), upon which a Debate on defence will take place.

Thursday; Report stage of the Government of India Bill.

The business for Friday will be announced later. On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: In view of the fact that the Minister of Health has put down a Motion to recommit the Housing Bill in respect of certain Clauses, and that there is a large number of Amendments including New Clauses in the name of the Minister, we are very desirous that there should be ample time for the Report stage and at the same time that there should be a full day for the Third Reading. It is proposed to take the conclusion of the Report stage and the Third Reading both on Monday, but if the Report stage continues to a late hour on Monday, I take it that extra time will be allotted for the Third Reading. With regard to the Report stage of the Government of India Bill, we have not had time to look through the very long list of Amendments put down by the Secretary of State. They relate to some 167 Clauses and although a number of them may only be drafting Amendments it is possible that the Report stage will occupy more than four days. With regard to a number of Amendments and a New Clause which have been put down with regard to the position of the States, embodying various terms which have been come to, I wish to ask whether it would be possible to get a White Paper setting out the exact effect of these Amendments on the relationship between the States and British India under the Bill? Otherwise it may take a long time to deal with those Amendments.

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the second question, we look upon the hon. Gentleman's suggestion very sympathetically. I have not had time to consult the Secretary of State on the matter, but I think it would be for the general convenience of the House, that a White Paper on that subject should be issued. Perhaps by Monday we might manage it but as I say the Government is quite sympathetic to the idea. With reference to the Report stage and Third Reading
of the Housing Bill, I have looked at the Order Paper and I understand that the great bulk of the Amendments are on matters which have been discussed in Committee. They have been put down because of pledges given and to meet points raised by the Committee. I am still hopeful that if the House gets on with the business, we may manage to get the Third Reading of the Bill by Monday night. It is very important that the Bill should leave the House as quickly as possible in order that it may pass into law with very little delay. Although these Amendments may appear rather formidable, as a matter of fact the substance is not nearly so great as the bulk. I hope, therefore, the House will allow my announcement to remain as it is. I think it is for the general convenience and will meet with the approval of everybody concerned.

Mr. ATTLEE: I understand that some of the Amendments raise very important questions of principle. May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman for what purpose he is moving the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night and whether he desires that the House should situate?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is only a precaution. The House will remember that we have frequently moved the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, not for the purpose of having a late sitting, but solely in order that any odds and ends which may be left unfinished at Eleven o'Clock should be finished before the rising of the House. That is the sole purpose of the Government in moving the suspension of the Rule.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With regard to the business on Wednesday, and the debate on Defence, are we right in assuming that the Lord President of the Council will open the discussion by making a statement on the relative strengths of the British and German Air Forces and also on the measures to betaken to accelerate the expansion of the Royal Air Force?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will meet the convenience and also the wishes of the House that the Lord President of the Council should open the debate and the intention is to cover generally the ground which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind—though I do not ask him to give an immediate answer upon the matter—that if a very important and necessarily complicated statement of that kind is made to the House, it is impossible that it should be done justice to in a debate which follows immediately? Will he consider, therefore, the presentation of a White Paper giving the main outlines of the statement, before the debate, or else inform us when an opportunity will be given afterwards, either on a supplementary estimate or otherwise, of discussing the matter? If a new and complicated statement is made to us in the way suggested, it is obvious that the House will not be able to deal with it in the ensuing debate in a coherent fashion.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman gave me no notice of this rather important question and I am afraid that I cannot answer it now.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said I did not press for an immediate answer.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is there any likelihood of the scheme in connection with the Herring Industry Board being put down for Friday? It is most important that this matter should be discussed during the daytime and not late at night.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say at the moment. The business for Friday will be announced later.

Mr. THORNE: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to advise whoever is to make the opening statement on Wednesday to read the statement made in the other House yesterday with regard to the air strength of Germany?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided; Ayes, 258; Noes, 55.

Division No. 194.]
AYES
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Goff, Sir Park


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Goldie, Noel B.


Albery, Irving James
Conant, R. J. E.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cooke, Douglas
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Copeland, Ida
Grimston, R. V.


Apsley, Lord
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Assheton, Ralph
Cranborne, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Hales, Harold K.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hanbury, Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balniel, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Harbord, Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Bernays, Robert
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Bossom, A. C.
Doran, Edward
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Boulton, W. W.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hornby, Frank


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Horobin, Ian M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. {Hackney, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Iveagh, Countess of


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Burnett, John George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Erskine-Bolst, Capt C. C. (Blackpool)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Butler, Richard Austen
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Kimball, Lawrence


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Carver, Major William H.
Fermoy, Lord
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fielden, Edward Brockfehurst
Law, Sir Alfred


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Leckle, J. A.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Flint, Abraham John
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lees-Jones, John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Levy, Thomas


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Clarry, Reginald George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Peat, Charles U.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Percy, Lord Eustace
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Soper, Richard


MacAndraw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Petherick, M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. O. (I. of W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hun. Herbert H.


McKeag, William
Pike, Cecil F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stones, James


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sutcliffe, Harold


May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Rickards, George William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingtwinford)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Train, John


Mohsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morgan, Robert H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Morrison, William Shepherd
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgsour


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Munro, Patrick
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Norie-Miller, Francis
Sandys, Duncan
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


North, Edward T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nunn, William
Savery, Servington
Womersley, Sir Walter


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Selley, Harry R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwall)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.



Patrick, Colin M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pearson, William G.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (York, W. Hiding)
Owen, Major Gerenwy


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cleary, J. J.
Harris, Sir Percy
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood Rt. Hon. Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmors)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Resolutions agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Milford Docks [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensedwith;—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
with;—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

3. "That, in the case of the Stourbridge Navigation Bill [Lords], Petition for further additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the parties be permitted to insert their further additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed].

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PALEWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed].

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.

Reported, with Amendments Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

GOLDERS GREEN (JEWISH) BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

3.57 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 10, page 7, line 22, Clause 72, page 57, line 2, Clause 78, page 59, line 33, and Clause 85, page 63, line 16, and of the new Clause (Provisions as to apparatus of statutory undertakers in land dealt with by local authorities under the Housing Acts), and of the Amendment to the Title, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Hilton Young.
This is almost entirely a routine Motion which involves no issue of any controversial nature. The necessity for the recommittal of the Bill arises in consequence of the fact that some of the Amendments and the Clauses which it is desired to introduce will involve in certain remote contingencies the possibility of a charge on the rates. For instance, one Amendment relating to the possible prosecution of a local authority might involve indirectly a charge in respect of legal expenses. Then as regards the Title of the Bill, a slight change has to be made and that can only be effected in Committee. The change in the Title is due to the fact that under Clause 13 the power in respect of re-development areas has been extended to all urban areas instead of only to a limited class of areas. The point to observe is that none of these matters in respect of which the Bill is to be recommitted involves any novelty for us, but they are all in respect of matters that are the result of agreement, arrangement and discussion in Committee upstairs.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has tried to minimise the importance of his Motion. He told us that it is a routine Motion, that it is not controversial and that there is no novelty in it. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman really ought not, in the very limited time suggested to be given to the Report stage and Third Reading, to have to inflict on the House a recommittal Motion, which, in a way, is either due to bad draftsmanship or
to his not having taken into full consultation, and arrived at agreement with, the various interests concerned. I cannot accept his view that there is a remote contingency that there may be a charge upon the rates. It is an absolute certainty. Again, the alteration of the Title of the Bill is a very serious step to take in this House. The right hon. Gentleman really ought to have dealt with these questions before. It was not known until to-day that the Government were going to recommit the Bill. There is no escape from it now, because the right hon. Gentleman has burnt his boats, but I think he might, at least, have made a rather fuller explanation, because if the time arranged for the Report stage is to hold good, we shall not get a full explanation of the various changes which have necessitated an alteration of the Title of the Bill and its recommittal. I believe it would have been for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman had made a rather fuller statement, and explained in a little more detail the new Clauses and new Amendments which make it inevitable that the Bill should be re-committed. We enter our protest against the recommittal, and make it a charge against the Government that this Bill has been so ill-considered that they have had to recommit it.

4.3 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: This House has always regarded the recommittal of a Bill as rather a serious matter, and I must say I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman brushed aside so lightly the necessity for this Motion. Financial Resolutions connected with Bills are historically important and are meant to have serious significance. I was also surprised that the right hon. Gentleman suggested the Motion was actually necessary because of some very remote contingency of an odd penny or two. I do not know whether it is really suggested that an odd penny or two would render the Amendments and new Clause necessary. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the proposed Amendment to Clause 10. That Amendment suggests that it may be necessary for a prosecution to be instituted by the Attorney-General against a local authority. I assume that it would be an expensive prosecution involving the use of public funds. Surely the Attorney-General would not take the very exceptional procedure of prosecuting
a local authority unless that local authority were very much at fault. The Government would be bound to win their case, and the local government would be responsible for the expenses. I think that is a reasonable assumption.
When I begin to study the Amendment it rather looks as if there is something more behind it. I have a vivid recollection of the discussions in Committee. Suggestions were made there that a large amount of overcrowding was permitted by local authorities in their dwellings, and among other local authorities there was mentioned no less an authority than the London County Council, and in particular, their estate at Becontree. They were charged with being particularly guilty of overcrowding. The charge was not completely true, but the suggestion was made. The Amendment might also apply to local authorities who do not enforce the provisions of the Bill against individuals, and permit overcrowding. We are entitled to know whether the Government really do think that prosecutions will be necessary on a very large scale indifferent parts of the country if these new provisions dealing with overcrowding are to be effective. The House of Commons ought not to pass a Motion of this kind unless it is quite clear what is its purpose, and what kind of expenditure is likely to be involved, and, if it really is only such a trivial thing as a few odd pence, I do suggest it is not really necessary to take this procedure.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I think it would be a great convenience to the House if you would kindly elucidate the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Motion. He asserted that the need for recommittal arose because there were possibilities under this new provision that charges might be imposed upon the rates. Does it follow from that that all Amendments on the Paper involving a contingent charge on the rates are out of order on the Report stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member asking me that question?

Mr. DENMAN: Yes, Sir. I thought you were the authority to answer it.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are some Amendments on the Paper which, obviously, would make a charge, and I have ruled them out of order.

Mr. DENMAN: A charge on local funds?

Mr. SPEAKER: A charge either on local funds or on national funds.

Mr. DENMAN: In those circumstances, I shall have to ask leave to submit an Amendment to the Motion now before the House, because I am sorry that I had not supposed that an Amendment merely throwing a charge on local funds required recommittal. Clause 61 is an extremely important Clause on which arise a number of highly important Amendments which have been put down by a variety of Members. Therefore, if I were in order, I would like to add Clause 61 to the Recommittal Motion.

4.9 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: On the same point of Order. I have a Clause down in respect of compensation for owner-occupiers. It had, I confess, never struck me that under the Rules of this House it was out of order on the Report stage to impose a charge on local funds. If that be the case, I, like my hon. Friend, would ask leave to move an Amendment to recommit the Bill in respect of the new Clause standing in my name (Compensation for owner-occupier).

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) move his Amendment?

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 61, page 50, line 40, standing in the name of Mr. Denman.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accede to this Amendment. He will see its reasonableness, because there is a great deal of feeling about this Clause, which certainly ought to be discussed in the whole House as well as in Committee.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.12 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I would like to be able to meet my hon. Friend, but he will see that it is not possible for me to accept the Amendment to the Motion. The Amendment, as I understand it, is a kind of omnibus Amendment, which would have the effect of allowing him to move any Amendment to Clause 61. The only
Amendments which would require such a Motion at the present time are Amendments involving the imposition of some fresh public charge under Clause 61, and I could not possibly at the present time accept that without knowing the implication of imposing any fresh charge other than such as His Majesty's Government are already prepared to move. It is well known that under our principles of legislation a fresh charge on the public purse must have the preliminary assent of the Crown in some form or another. I could not at the present time signify general assent to the acceptance of any fresh public charge on the rates or taxes under Clause 61 or any other Clause of which I have no notification or knowledge.

4.14 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has not, if I may use the phrase, fully apprehended the point at issue. By agreeing to the proposed Amendment to the Motion, he does not necessarily accept Amendments which the hon. Member may subsequently move to the Clause. It is not in his power to do so. It is a matter for the House. Under the procedure of the House, as you, Mr. Speaker, have made clear, it is impossible on the Report stage for any addition to be made to a public charge, even although it takes the form of an addition to the rates. It is possible, however, in the Committee stage for a private Member to propose an Amendment which would have the effect of adding to the charge on the rates. The right hon. Gentleman himself has moved to recommit the Bill in respect of certain proposals which he is about to bring forward, and I support him in that against the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because it is as a result of definite promises which he made in Committee. But as he has himself proposed a Motion to recommit the Bill in respect of certain financial charges which will be necessary in order to carry out his policy, I think he should permit my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) to move the recommittal of the Bill in respect of these other two Clauses. That seems to be only fair. It does not commit the Minister to the acceptance of their proposals; it is merely a technical
procedure in order to allow them to be moved. I have never heard of a Government bringing forward a recommittal Motion and, when an hon. Member wishes an addition to be made to it, saying "No, we are only going to recommit the Bill in respect of particular Clauses which we have named." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision, because if he goes to a Division he will probably be defeated.

4.16 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I really do find myself in a substantial difficulty about this matter. I have no knowledge at all of the nature of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) desires to move, and the House will understand the very grave sense of responsibility which a Minister must feel in opening the door to a proposal to impose further charges, even on the rates, on the Report stage, when the matter, as far as I know, has not been advanced in debate in the preliminary stages. Nevertheless, I am most reluctant at this early stage of our proceedings to close any door upon any discussion which the House desires to have on the Bill, and as I see that there is a genuine feeling that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend—

Dr. ADDISON: Not at all—not on this side.

Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to think that I have detected what I may call a "sensation" in the House. I shall be happy to withdraw the opposition to the hon. Gentleman on the understanding that it is recognised that it really is a grave matter to extend are committal Motion.

4.18 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I would call attention to the facility with which, in spite of his objection, the right hon. Gentleman falls in with this very dangerous suggestion. The particular Clause to which the Amendment refers is one which in our view, although we represent a small minority, involves an increase in the compensation payable on the acquisition of property which has been condemned, which we regard as very objectionable indeed. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not know what the hon. Member is going to propose, but so far as I apprehend it the only result of such a Clause would be to increase the compensation
payable in those cases, and to that we object. I suggest that it is an unprecedented thing on Report stage, with no notice on the Order Paper, suddenly to move to recommit a Bill in regard to a matter which may involve great public expense. I think it is a most objectionable

precedent which the right hon. Gentleman is setting up.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 50.

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[4.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, George A. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duggan, Hubert John
Levy, Thomas


Albery, Irving James
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Llewellyn, Jones, Frederick


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Assheton, Ralph
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
McKeag, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Flint, Abraham John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Bernays, Robert
Fox, Sir Gifford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Blindell, James
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goff, Sir Park
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bullock,-Captain Malcolm
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Burnett, John George
Grigg, Sir Edward
Munro, Patrick


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Norie-Miller, Francis


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W.
North, Edward T.


Carver, Major William H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nunn, William


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hales, Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peake, Osbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peat, Charles U.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Harbord, Arthur
Penny, Sir George


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pike, Cecil F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hornby, Frank
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colman, N. C. D.
Horobin, Ian M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid Capt. A. Cunningham-


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooke, Douglas
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cooper, A. Duff
Iveagh, Countess of
Rickards, George William


Copeland, Ida
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Robinson, John Roland


Cranborne, Viscount
Jamieson, Douglas
Ropner, Colonel L.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Kimball, Lawrence
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crossley, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lamb, Sir Joseph Ouinton
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Davison, Sir William Henry
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leckle, J. A.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Doran, Edward
Lees-Jones, John
Sandys, Duncan


Savery, Servington
Stones, James
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Salley, Harry R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Sir Walter


Somervell, Sir Donald
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Somervell, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Soper, Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)



Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lamber


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Ward and Captain Hope


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cleary, J. J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

4.29 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add:
and of the new Clause (Compensation for owner occupier) standing in the name of Lord Eustace Percy.
I will not detain the House by arguing this Amendment. I hope the Minister will not oppose it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am bound to enter an emphatic protest against these proceedings. So far as I am aware, the procedure is entirely new. We have opened the door in one Amendment to a rediscussion of compensation for slum landlords; we are to open it again in this new Amendment. We are supposed to be having Thursday, a short day on Friday, and Monday, to complete the stages of the Bill. That time is all too short, in any event. Nobody can charge me with having pursued obstructionist tactics on Committee. We played a perfectly reasonable game on Standing Committee. We protested against the allowance of three days, and now, at the very last minute in the House, we are to reopen discussion of the Bill, and upon a new Clause. I am bound to say that this is making the procedure of the House a farce, and I hope that the right hon.
Gentleman will not pursue this course. Had we known that the Bill was to be recommitted and that we could move Amendments to increase the charge, we should have more Amendments on the Paper than we have there now; but we followed Parliamentary precedent, and tried to avoid putting Amendments down which we regarded as inevitably out of order.
Hon. Members who defy the Rules of the House can put down Amendments which are obviously out of order, and, because the right hon. Gentleman recommits the Bill, can have them discussed in the House in a way which is absolutely out of accordance with Parliamentary custom. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to accept this principle, because, if he does, I shall take the earliest possible moment of moving the adjournment of the Debate. The Government have acted scandalously in this business. It was very bad for the right hon. Gentleman to accept the first Amendment, but it is even worse when the second is moved because, logically, he cannot resist now. It will be open to any of us now to keep the Debate going all day by moving Amendments of this kind. The principle having been accepted, it will be difficult for the right
hon. Gentleman not to accept the re-committal of the whole Bill. Perhaps that might have been the best way out of the difficulty—to re-commit the Bill and let us start afresh. I speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House; we feel it is an abuse of all the Standing Orders that, at this stage, special vested interests should get an opportunity for re-discussing questions which have Already been fully discussed on Standing Committee, and which would normally be out of order on the Report stage.

4.34 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I have a shrewd suspicion that the House is very puzzled at what we have been doing for the last quarter of an hour. Hon. Members who were Members of the Committee will remember that we had a very protracted discussion on all the Clauses with reference to compensation. The right hon. Gentleman, to his credit, gave a very clear and wise lead to the Committee, and kept the Committee on an even keel. He realised how far the Bill could be extended, in order to give compensation. Now, after we have considered the problem in detail in Committee, we are suddenly to have the whole problem reopened on such a scale that if the Motion be passed—I know the attitude of certain Members of the House—we may find the cost of slum clearance so largely increased that all prospect of the speedy completion of the right hon. Gentleman's great scheme will be held up. This is not merely a matter which concerns the taxpayers or any charge on public funds for which we are responsible, but it concerns also the liability on local rates. In the north of England, particularly, large numbers of local authorities would like to see a really forward policy of slum clearance, but they are shy of going ahead because of the heavy burden upon their rates. By the change in procedure, made on the initiative of two private Members, although we have already made large and substantial concessions in the Bill, the cost of the right hon. Gentleman's slum clearance scheme in some parts of the country may become prohibitive. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be firm this time. He showed a firm front in the first instance, and he should not give way to the wiles and the charms of the Noble Lord. I know that the two hon. Members are very important and that they are ex-Ministers of great influence, but I hope
that the Minister, with the knowledge which is at his disposal, will stick to his guns and resist the Amendment.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I must add a word to correct what might be a most vicious misrepresentation. I am accused of moving an Amendment which would add to the cost of slum clearance and might wreck the whole of the scheme. In fact, the Amendment which we have leave to discuss is merely an Amendment to add to the compensation of owner occupiers, a very poor and deserving class. They are very poor people, whom hon. Members of the Opposition used to think in the last Parliament they represented, but whom they appear to have forgotten completely. I hope the Noble Lord's Amendment will be agreed to, and that we shall be able to get on to the business.

4.38 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I hope there is no misapprehension in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) or any other hon. Member. I have pronounced no opinion on the merits of the Amendment, and I am certainly very far from undertaking to accept it. I do not grudge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)the opportunity of making a little trouble at the beginning of these proceedings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who started it?] I trust very much that he did not mean it, and that his action will not have that result. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that there has been any misuse of the procedure of the House of Commons is a remarkable statement. Our procedure is in the hands of Mr. Speaker, who has allowed certain Motions to be put. I indicated the attitude of the Government towards those Motions. There is no more impropriety on this occasion than on any other occasion.
The Government have adopted a certain procedure in order to carryout a number of undertakings and arrangements which were made in Committee. Two Members of the House arose and drew attention to the fact that there were Amendments in their names on subjects of interest which could only be discussed if they were admitted into the Motion put down by the Government. The Government then said that, in order to meet what
seemed the general sense of the House, they would be prepared to extend the procedure which they were adopting to these Amendments, in order to admit the discussion which the two Members desired to raise. I indicated my assent to that course on behalf of the Government. I am perfectly confident that in doing so I was carrying out the general wish of the House, and I am sure that we can trust to the good sense of the House not to waste further time when we are seeking to extend the scope of the Bill.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, in a charming manner, has tried to get himself out of the tangle. I am compelled to say one or two things. The trouble to which he has referred is because we on this side of the House are jealous of the rules of procedure, and we regard what has been done to-day as something which would make those rules absolutely ridiculous so far as the Bill is concerned. With regard to suggestions of prejudice, the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) managed to snarl out a few sentences and said that during the lifetime of the last Labour Government similar proceedings to this were followed. I challenge him to tell the House when similar things were done during the lifetime of the last Labour Government, and, if they were, whether he protested on those occasions.
With regard to the procedure. Hon. Members who were on the Committee for the full 20 days will agree that there was a full and adequate discussion of the points in question. It appears tome that some of those Members who wish to increase the charges on the local authorities to go into the hands of property owners were not satisfied with the treatment which they received in Committee, and they wish to renew the discussion on Report stage. I join in the protest which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). The House is seeing to-day how ill-conceived the Bill has been. The Minister would have been better advised, instead of accepting the Amendments to have withdrawn the Motion for recommittal, and come back to the House only when he knew exactly what he had in mind.

4.43 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I would add my protest to that of my right hon. Friend, and I would appeal to the Minister in the interests of the procedure of the House, which is of much more importance than party divisions. This is a case in which, had it not been for the Motion on the Paper, the Amendments would not have been called by Mr. Speaker, because they would have been out of order, according to the procedure of the House. The intention and the purpose of the proposed procedure is to secure that certain matters may be discussed in Committee and be in order in Committee. Those matters were discussed in Committee at great length, I understand, and were in order. It is now not in order to discuss them on the Report stage, and the Amendments would automatically have been ruled out of order on that account. If this procedure is to become part of the procedure of the House, it will be open to any Member to take advantage of it, because you, Mr. Speaker, quite properly, accept a Motion which is in order. If this principle is to be adopted by the Government or by any subsequent Government, it knocks the bottom out of our existing procedure, the whole purpose of which is to limit the discussion on the Report stage to matters which were not adequately dealt with in Committee, and which, according to our rules, are in order on Report stage. But by the action of the right hon. Gentleman the whole intention of the procedure of the House of Commons is set at nought, and any one, anywhere, can get up at this stage and move an Amendment to recommit a Bill which will reopen practically the whole of the contentious parts of the Measure. Apart entirely from the merits of the question and in the interests of the procedure of this House, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Amendment.

4.46 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want, and I do not think it would be proper, to discuss the merits of the Amendment which the acceptance of the Motion before the House would enable to be moved. But what brings me to my feet is the astounding assertion of the
two right hon. Gentlemen that the resolution would interfere with the rules of procedure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The right hon. Gentlemen say that, if the Bill is recommitted in respect of certain Clauses, we destroy the whole purpose of our procedure.

Dr. ADDISON: May I with great respect—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—say he has misunderstood the point. The point at issue does not concern the Motion on the Paper which we fully understand; it is the acceptance by the Government of Amendments which are not even on the Paper and which are not even in manuscript, moved indiscriminately in any part of the House in respect of the recommital of the Bill.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman's objection is confined to the fact that he had no notice of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was not what he said in his speech. After all, the Report stage is the opportunity for the House to review the work of the Committee. When the whole House sits in Committee—and all of us have an opportunity of taking part in the Committee stage—the work of the Committee is often, I think, better done—it is generally admirably done, but there are a great many of us who may not have sat in Committee and who may wish to raise some matter to the consideration of which we feel we have something to contribute. But there are certain questions which for technical reasons cannot be raised on the Report stage and can only be raised in Committee. If there is any Amendment sought to be moved which involves a charge to the taxpayer or ratepayer, the Government may have to recommit the whole Bill in order that certain promises which they gave in Committee may be fulfilled. Therefore, the two hon. Members ask that the matters which they raise should stand in exactly the same category. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] To say "no" does not make it otherwise. To regard such a course as an innovation must show an ignorance of Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he justifies a procedure which permits Members of this House to put Amendments on the
Paper which are obviously out of order on the Report stage and to take advantage of such a step to get a re-discussion in Committee of these questions.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Bill is recommitted in order that certain matters which would not be in order on Report may be reconsidered, what is there extraordinary in the hon. Members asking that the two matters which they raise shall have the same treatment.

4.51 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one inaccuracy in what he has put to the House. He says that these two Amendments are in the same category as the matters which are to be recommitted by the Government. On his own statement they are not. The matters which the Government tells us this recommittal is required to meet are matters to carry out undertakings that were given in Committee. It is necessary, they say, because that could not be done formally at the time, to recommit in order that those undertakings may be carried out. But there was no undertaking regarding these Amendments. In fact, as I understand it, they were both definitely turned down without any undertaking, and there is all the difference in the world between the Government asking as a matter of convenience for recommital in order that a matter may be put right haying regard to some undertaking which they have given, and their accepting an Amendment to re-introduce a discussion which normally would be completely out of order on the Report stage.
The right hon. Gentleman has a vastly longer experience than I have, but I do not know whether he knows of any precedent in which the Government on a recommittal motion have accepted Amendments from private Members on matters fully discussed on the Committee stage and turned down by the Government in Committee, in order that the whole thing may be re-discussed on the Report stage. It is clearly a departure from the spirit of those rules which he calls the technical rules of procedure. Really if these matters had been brought forward and put on the Order Paper, with a motion by the hon. Members for recommittal, the House would never have considered for a moment recommittal of the Measure and the Government would never
have considered accepting recommittal. Surely the Noble Lord in these circumstances will not press the matter, because I do feel it is setting a very dangerous precedent, from which it may follow that if someone else gets up and asks for a Clause to be recommitted the right hon. Gentleman cannot refuse it. It would be in effect setting aside a technical rule of procedure. It would be better for the House to alter the Standing Orders of the House rather than to devise ways of getting round them.

4.55 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to withdraw my Amendment. I shall certainly not do so. If it had been contended that it was impossible to impose a charge on local funds on the Report stage, that would have been a valid objection to my proceeding, but that is not what the hon. Gentleman has complained about. His contention is that, while the Government may put down a Motion for recommittal for the purpose of implementing promises given in Committee, a private Member is doing something improper when he tries on that Motion to raise an important Clause which had been already discussed in Committee.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The recommittal Motion was put on the Paper this morning. This Amendment was put down before. Did not the Noble Lord know when he put the Amendment down that it would be out of order?

Lord E. PERCY: I did not. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to develop heat. This is a point of principle, but it is not a point on which the right hon. Gentleman should find it necessary to lose his temper. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) has now raised a contention on principle that it is improper for a private Member to move to recommit a Bill in respect of an important financial provision.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I did not suggest that it was improper to do anything of the sort. What I suggested was that it was not right to utilise the fact that the Government had got this recommittal Motion on the Paper, as they say, for the purpose of implementing a promise, in order to compel them to accept an
Amendment which had the effect of recommitting something which was fully discussed in Committee.

Lord E. PERCY: Really, that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's only point—that I am taking advantage of the Government having put the Motion down. That is, in the strictest sense of the word, a technicality, an argument which is not worth answering. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems anxious to lay it down that in future no matter what a Committee may do upstairs this House shall not reconsider it if it relates to any important financial question and especially if it relates to compensation for any one of His Majesty's subjects in respect of the confiscation of his property. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems anxious that in this instance the claims of the owner-occupier shall not be considered. I am very determined that they shall be considered.

4.59 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I think we should realise what is the effect of the precedent which is being set to-day and how unfairly it treats various Members, one with another. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who attended assiduously the sittings of the Committee put down Amendments to secure that Government contributions should be made not only in respect of new flats but of new houses. He did not put down his Amendment for the Report stage, because he knew that it was out of order, and therefore he is not able at this moment to move that it should be added to the Government Motion, and so have his Amendment or any similar Amendment carried forward to Committee stage on the back of the Government Motion. But the Noble Lord opposite, having putdown his Amendment because, he said, he did not know that it was out of order, the Government, having introduced this Motion for recommittal, add the Amendment of the Noble Lord who has just spoken. Other Members who did not put down Amendments because they knew it was out of order are excluded. That is obviously quite unsound. I am disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that if there is to be a change in procedure it ought to be made by alteration in Standing Orders. It ought to be made
a general rule. It may be right or it may be wrong—it is a matter for consideration—but to make these arbitrary distinctions seems to me to be a very improper use of procedure.

5.2 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to say who is making these arbitrary decisions? His speech sounds very much like an attack on the procedure of the House and the Chair. An Amendment is before the House for the House to decide on. The House will decide what it is going to do. Who are the people who are making arbitrary distinctions? I was very surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I was not in the least surprised to hear that of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). It is in accord with the perfectly sincere programme which he is carrying out in the country and in the House to take away from private Members every right they possess; and to govern the House by some system of Order-in-Council. I think that before the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) delivers such a speech he should tell us who he is attacking? I regard his speech as a most sinister one. Who are these mysterious authorities who are introducing a new principle into the procedure of the House? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us. The Government, in saying that they will accept an Amendment to a Motion which has been put from the Chair, are not introducing a new element in the procedure of the House. How can they be? I am in complete doubt as to what the right hon. Gentleman means.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I like to hear the Noble Lord suggesting that right hon. and hon. Members sitting on these benches or even the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are anxious to take private Members' time when the Noble Lord's Government have taken every moment of private Members' time during the whole of this Parliamentary Session. It is rather late in the day for the Noble Lord to come along and suggest that we are taking private Members' time. The right hon. Member for Nest Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), to whom I am always prepared to listen
on matters of procedure, seems to me for once at all events to have made a very bad slip. I have always listened very intently to the right hon. Gentleman where matters of procedure are concerned, and in 99 cases out of 100 I should be prepared to follow him. But by now I think that the right hon. Gentleman must confess that he was wrong when he intervened in this Debate. He was challenged to remind us of any precedent, and he has failed to produce one. The Minister has not suggested any date or incident when a precedent may have been established. It does not follow necessarily that because we are creating a precedent that precedent must be a bad one, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said, the only right hon. Member in the House who is obtaining any advantage as a result of creating a very doubtful precedent is the Noble Lord who apparently misunderstood the Rules of the House. That seems to me to be an extraordinary situation and more so in view of the fact that those of us who sit on these benches are always charged with wanting to introduce revolutionary ideas either in this House or outside.
There may be good cause for the Minister having adopted the attitude he adopted this afternoon, but for the convenience of those Members who were not in the House I might recall that he confessed at the commencement that he was suffering under a grave disadvantage. He was not aware that these Amendments were to be moved this afternoon. He was not aware that these responsible Members of his own party—the ex-Minister of Education must be so regarded—were going to take advantage of his Motion on the Order Paper. It seems to me that those Members who really want to support the Minister and to preserve the best that is in the Standing Orders of this House must support our view. If, as my hon. and learned Friend truly said, it is time to change the Standing Orders so as to extend the privileges of private Members, that ought to be done by the appropriate committee, the committee that deals with procedure in this House, and not in the slipshod, happy-go-lucky, very devious fashion which is being adopted this afternoon.
We suggest to the Noble Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that when next he refers to hon. Members on these benches pilfering private Members' time he will not hesitate to put the point of view—as I know he has done in the past—that his own Government have taken every moment of private Members' time during the whole of this Parliamentary Session.

5.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: On this very complicated matter, as one who sat at nearly every sitting of the Committee upstairs and who has followed this Debate very closely, I must say that I can come to only one conclusion. I regret the action taken by the Minister in accepting the Amendment. I think that the whole House will realise that the Minister was put in an exceedingly difficult position. A complicated and technical question was put to him to answer at short notice, but I cannot help thinking that if he had had a longer time to consider this very involved question his answer might have been different. It

seems to me that there is all the difference in the world between recommitting the Bill for the purpose of carrying out some general agreement which was arrived at in Committee and recommitting the Bill to reconsider something which has already been fully discussed and decided in Committee. It seems to me that before that action is taken a very strong reason should be brought before the House as to why a matter which has been decided in Committee should be reopened for discussion in this House. I cannot help feeling that the Minister made a mistake, which I think a great many people on the spur of the moment would probably have fallen into, but, if this is to be looked on as a precedent, it may lead to a great many difficulties in regard to future Bills, which really will have arisen over a slight misunderstanding. I hope that this Motion will not be taken as a precedent for the future, and that the whole. House will realise that it may possibly be a mistake.

Question, put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 55.

Division No. 196.]
AYES.
[5.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Col. H. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fox, Sir Gifford


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gillett, Sir George Master man


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Assheton, Ralph
Colfox, Major William Philip
Glossop, C. W. H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Conant, R. J. E.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Atholl, Duchess of
Cook, Thomas A.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cooke, Douglas
Goff, Sir Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooper, A. Duff
Goldie, Noel B.


Balniel, Lord
Copeland, Ida
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gower, Sir Robert


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bernays, Robert
Crossley, A. C.
Grigg, Sir Edward


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grimston, R. V.


Blindell, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Hales, Harold K.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bracken, Brendan
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brass, Captain Sir William
Duggan, Hubert John
Harbord, Arthur


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dunglass, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Elmley, Viscount
Hills, Major Ht. Hon. John Waller


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Burnett, John George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hornby, Frank


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Horobin, Ian M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Flint, Abraham John
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Iveagh, Countess of
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Morgan, Robert H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Jamieson, Douglas
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Soper, Richard


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Munro, Patrick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Norie-Miller, Francis
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Kimball, Lawrence
North, Edward T.
Spens, William Patrick


Knox, Sir Alfred
Orr Ewing I. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peake, Osbert
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pearson William G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Law, Sir Alfred
Penny, Sir George
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Leckle, J. A.
Percy Lord Eustace
Stones, James


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lees-Jones, John
Petherick, M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Levy, Thomas
Pike, Cecil F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Pownall Sir Assheton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Rankin, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, Capt A. Cunningham-
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reid, James (Stirling)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G (Partick)
Rhys Hon Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rickards, George William'
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


McKeag, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Runsell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wise, Alfred R.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Sandys, Duncan
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Savery, Servington
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Selley, Harry R.



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Sir Victor Warrender and Major




George Davies.


NOES


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cleary, J. J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dobbie, William
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

5.21 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add, "and of Clauses 30 to 34."
As a private Member I welcome the precedent which has now been set by the Minister. I was brought up in an old-fashioned school, but am prepared to go with the times. In the Committee I was
most anxious to widen the character of the building construction to which assistance from rates and taxes could be given. In my view the Bill leans far too heavily in favour of flats as against cottages and small houses, and I am fortified in that view by the opinion of most persons who have studied the housing problem on a large scale. I think the Minister has
taken a bold and perhaps, in all the circumstances, a wise course; I think he wants the problem to be viewed anew; and, in the light, of his acceptance of an Amendment from the other side of the House, perhaps he will show the same sympathy for the Amendment which I now move.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to Second the Amendment.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I desire to support the Amendment, if for no other reason, in a spirit of fairness to all Members of the House. I think it will be agreed by every Member of the House that, even if not intentionally, the Minister, by his action in accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), has given the impression to many Members of the House, including myself, and no doubt will give an impression to many people outside the House, that he and those who are supporting him desire to give a preference to certain Members of the House that would not be given to other Members. It ought to be apparent to the Minister and to everyone else that, if we are to discuss a part of the Clauses dealing with the financial relations between the Government, the local authorities and the people who are to benefit under those Clauses, the Government ought to give us an opportunity for are consideration of the whole of the problems involved, and the commitments of the Government and others which the Clauses involve. I was not a Member of the Committee upstairs, but I was extremely interested in the discussions that took place there, and I was very disappointed that some of the ideas which I and other Members of the House hold were not, in my view at any rate, given full expression to in the Committee.
In my view these five Clauses were inadequately discussed, and the decisions arrived at were not decisions of which I, at any rate, approve. In that regard I am in exactly the same position as the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings, who has been given the opportunity today of bringing the matter from the Committee upstairs down to a wider and, he hopes, a more successful discussion here on the Floor of the House. I submit to the House, taking the case of the
Noble Lord and myself—there may be many others—that, the Noble Lord having been given by a vote of the House the opportunity for which he has pleaded, there ought to be no reason why I or any other Member of the House suffering from a similar sense of grievance should not get from the Government and the House the same opportunity for consideration of matters which we think are operating unfairly against us. For that reason I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, having conceded to some Members of the House an opportunity for fuller and wider discussion of the Clauses in which they are interested, he should at least be fair to other Members of the House and give them the same opportunity.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: So far as I understand the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir Percy Harris), he has moved his Amendment in order to raise the question of cottages. I think I am interpreting him correctly. If that be the ease, even if his Amendment be carried, I do not think his object will be achieved, because I gather that he wants to propose something outside the Financial Resolution, which bind sour proceedings in any event. In those circumstances I hope he will reconsider his attitude. It is no use getting his proposal carried if, when he tables his Amendments, they have to be ruled out of order in any event.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: If this Amendment is to be accepted—and presumably it would be possible also to accept a series of other similar Amendments—and if it is going to be the habit of the House to recommit large sections of Bills, I personally cannot see what is the use of a 'Committee stage. I have not taken part in either of the Divisions, but I think that some private Members might very well register great regret at some of the proceedings this afternoon.

5.29 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is, of course, quite in order, and, if I thought that it would at all assist in the useful discussion of the Bill by the House on Report, I would at once accede to it. There are, however, three reasons which I think are very
cogent, and which will be quite plain to the House, why the Amendment would not really assist our proceedings. In the first place, it is very much too wide. The recommittal of no fewer than five Clauses is so wide that for the moment I doubted whether it could have been intended seriously by the hon. Member. In the second place, as has been rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the Clauses which the hon. Member desires to recommit concern financial issues in regard to which we are bound by the Financial Resolution.
Speaking as a matter of common sense, it is not possible to frame Amendments which would naturally be in order. The Amendments which we previously debated concern interesting points not discussed in Committee. The only questions which can possibly arise on the present Amendment are those which have been thrashed out in Committee.

Sir P. HARRIS: Amendments were down on the Paper, but they were ruled out of order because of the Financial Resolution. We had no discussion on the very large problem on which I had very strong expert opinion, and I want it to be in order so that it can be discussed.

Sir H. YOUNG: If an Amendment is out of order because of the Financial Resolution, it remains out of order and cannot be brought in. The intention of the Government is to assist the House to a practical discussion of a most useful kind on the Report stage. I do not feel that this Amendment would assist the House, and therefore I recommend it not to accept it.

5.32 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The observations of the right hon. Gentleman are really not conclusive, for if the Amendments that have already been accepted will be in order for discussion when we come to the Report stage, my hon. Friend would certainly be able to draft Amendments on these particular Clauses which would be equally in order. It is true that he could not draft any Amendment which would increase the Exchequer contribution, and that was why it was ruled out of order on the Committee stage. If a particular Amendment is out of order on the original committal Motion it would equally be out of order on the re-committal of the Bill.
My hon. Friend no doubt could draft Amendments which would impose a similar charge to that which is now proposed by the hon. Members whose Amendments have been accepted, namely, a charge upon the rates, and that would be in order.
We did not know that this most unusual and indeed unprecedented procedure was going to be adopted to-day, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) could not in advance draft such Amendment. That is why he has now moved the re-committal of the Clauses including not only Exchequer but also rate contributions to house and flat building. His object is to enable the House to consider whether almost the entire financial assistance to be given should be as in the Bill. That is why, if it has been possible and in order and useful to accept the Amendments which have been already accepted by the House, equally there is a case for the third Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. It is a very significant fact indicating the tangle into which we have been brought by the course taken by the Minister to-day that two very well-known and influential Members of the party supporting the Government, the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Northampton (Sir. M. Manningham-Buller), and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), have both found it necessary to raise a voice of protest and to suggest that a mistake has been made, and that the precedent set to-day is not warranted, and is somewhat ominous for the future.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am astonished at the change of front of the Minister. Logically, having accepted the first two Amendments, what reason is there for rejecting another Amendment? The only reason I can see is that he is rather more friendly towards the first two Amendments than he is towards the third Amendment in connection with this recommittal of Clauses. If these Clauses are recommitted, we can certainly re-discuss on these Clauses the financial principles on which the Bill is based. If, owing to the accident of the right hon. Gentleman having to recommit this Bill, Amendments which normally would not have been called can be brought in for possible discussion on the recommittal of the Bill, clearly hon. Members on both
sides of the House are entitled to raise points upon which they feel very strongly. I am not sure, in view of the mess in which he has landed himself this afternoon, that it would not have been wiser to have moved the recommittal of the whole Bill. It might have saved a good deal of trouble. It is a case of sheer favouritism. Two Amendments to the recommittal Motion are accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, but the first Amendment that comes from the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is to be

rejected for reasons which are absolutely irrelevant in this discussion in regard to the recommittal Motion. I hope that hon. Members who so cheerfully supported in the Lobby the other two Amendments will on the same ground—we are not urging any other grounds—support this Amendment also in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 62;Noes, 251.

Division No. 197
AYES.
[5.37 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Paling, Wilfred


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cleary, J. J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
John, William
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Jones, Morgen (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Percy Harris.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McKeag, William



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fermoy, Lord


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Flint, Abraham John


Allen, Lt. -Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fox, Sir Gifford


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Assheton, Ralph
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolle
Colfox, Major William Philip
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Conant, R. J. E.
Gluckstein, Louls Halle


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cook, Thomas A.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Douglas
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Goldie, Noel B.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Copeland, Ida
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gower, Sir Robert


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Craven-Ellis, William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Blindell, James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Boulton, W. W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grigg, Sir Edward


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Culverwell, Cyrll Tom
Grimston, R. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bralthwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Brass, Captain Sir William
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hales, Harold K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, Cedric
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harbord, Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hartington, Marquess of


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burnett, John George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hornby, Frank


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Horobin, Ian M.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Molton, A. Hugh Elsdale
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Soper, Richard


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Morgan, Robert H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Munro, Patrick
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spens, William Patrick


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Norle-Miller, Francis
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Jamieson, Douglas
North, Edward T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Ker, J. Campbell
Peaks, Osbert
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Kerr, Lieut. -Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pearson, William G.
Stones, James


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Penny, Sir George
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Kimball, Lawrence
Percy, Lord Eustace
Strauss, Edward A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Petherick, M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Law, Sir Alfred
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Leckle, J. A.
Pike, Cecil F.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsdon, Sir Eugene
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rankin, Robert
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Levy, Thomas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Rickards, George William
Ward, Lt. -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacAndrew, Lieut. -Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rutherford, Sir John Huge (Liverp'l)
Wite, Alfred R.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Withers, Sir John James


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandys, Duncan
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'nonks)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Savery, Servington



Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Selley, Harry R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sir Victor Warrender and Major


Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
George Davies.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add
and of the new Clause (Amendment as to allowances to non-provided schools in respect of demolitions, &c.) standing in the name of Mr. Chorlton.
This is an exceedingly important Amendment. It refers specifically to those schools connected with churches which are affected by the declaration of clearance areas. I possess the doubtful distinction of being the Member of Parliament for a Division which has the largest slum areas that have been declared clearance areas in this country. Those areas affect the church schools surrounding them. The churches affected are those of St. Malachi, St. Patrick, St. Oswald, St. James and the Albert Memorial Church. The schools are supported and carried on by the churches concerned, and the effect of the slum clearance is to reduce the school attendance of that district, by 50 per cent. and
also the church attendance. It becomes almost impossible to carryon the schools because the support will be insufficient. Therefore it seems only reasonable that some means should be provided—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into the merits of the Clause, but only to ask that it be added to the Motion for Recommittal.

Mr. CHORLTON: I would ask the Government to accept the Amendment.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I beg to second the Amendment.
I listened very carefully to all that has been said, particularly as regards the Rules of Procedure, and it seems to me that whatever was said on the first three Amendments could equally well be said on this Amendment. I have, however, been wondering whether if this Amendment were accepted by the Government it would not still be in order for the
Chairman when this particular Amendment along with the others which have been accepted, comes forward, to disallow such Amendments and not to call them. As I understand it, all that we are doing now is to say whether this Amendment shall be called by the Chairman when these matters are recommitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am given to understand by those who were on the Committee upstairs that the matter which is the subject of the present Amendment has not been discussed and I welcome the opportunity of expressing the opinion that we should be allowed to discuss this particular matter.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of supporting the Amendment. I do not intend to enter into the merits of it, but I want to put forward my reasons for suggesting that it should be discussed, from the point of view of one who has taken and is taking great interest in the housing of the people, and as a member of a housing committee. Not having had an opportunity upstairs of discussing this matter I certainly thought that so important a question would be discussed later. We have seen a unique event in the House this afternoon, which seems to me unprecedented in Parliamentary procedure, and having witnessed that incident I now avail myself of the opportunity of supporting the proposed Amendment. I do not intend to detain the House any longer, because I shall reserve my remarks until we debate this particular Amendment later.

5.49 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will not be wholly surprised to hear that I do not propose to accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government. I propose to deal with it in precisely the same way as I have attempted to deal with previous Amendments of the same sort, and that is to consider it not from the point of view of the merits of the Amendment—which Mr. Speaker has reminded us are not in question to-day—but whether it is necessary or useful for the House to have an opportunity of discussing such a matter. On that head let me point out that the matter to which my hon. Friend referred is outside the scope of the present Bill
and relates rather to the financing of education services. In the second place, the Amendment is based on a misconception as to what the liability of the grant-aiding authority is towards non-provided schools, which relates to the number of pupils in the schools. In the third place, we are again up against the same difficulty as in another case of bringing the matter inside the Rules of Order and inside our Financial Resolution. In these circumstances, and as I do not think that this is an essential matter to be dealt with in the Bill, I am not prepared to advise the House to extend the procedure and to include it at this stage.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman changes his ground very quickly. Having been guilty of a very illogical action on the last occasion, he is now trying to be consistent, but for different reasons. I should have thought that this question, which was not debated upstairs—in this respect it is unlike some of the questions which are to be re-debated—ought to be dealt with, but the Minister entered into the merits of it by saying that it is concerned with the financing of educational services and not with this Bill. I would point out that in Clause 82 of the Bill people whose incomes are materially decreased because of the Bill may receive compensation. Surely, therefore, it is permissible for the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) to bring forward this Amendment in order to put the non-provided schools—for which I have no special liking—into the same category.
The House is getting into a state of confusion. Two Amendments have been accepted, one has been rejected and another is to be rejected, and the people who supported the inclusion of the previous Clauses are now to be ranged against this one. We are in a state of muddle, to which I shall have to refer when we get rid of this Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will either be able to say that he is going to accept only the two Amendments that have been accepted or that he is prepared to accept all the Amendments, so that we should get a fair field of discussion on the recommittal of the Bill. I asked hon. Members on the occasion of the last Division to be logical and
follow the same lines that they had taken on the previous two Amendments, but they did not do so. I should have thought that on the question now before us, now that we are reverting to type and that the Amendment comes from the Government side, the Government would revert to its practice of accepting Amendments from the Government supporters and not accepting Opposition Amendments. Let them accept this Amendment and avoid a Division. If, however, the right hon. Gentlement insists that he is not going to accept it, I hope the hon. Member who moved it will be bold enough to go with us into the Division Lobby against the Government.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to support the Amendment, for the reason that the Minister is not entitled to go back on the argument that he has used and that any private Member, whatever the merits or demerits of his case maybe, should have an opportunity of having his Amendments discussed. So far as I can understand it, the Amendment now before us is very important. It affects a large number of people who if the Bill comes into effect as it stands will be seriously concerned about the money which they will have to spend or the money which they have already spent, which will be lost by them because of the action to be taken by the local authorities in some clearance areas. I do not want to discuss the merits or the demerits of the question. The Minister has clearly indicated that it is not a question of whether an Amendment will be accepted by him, even if we added it to the recommittal Clauses. He has specifically indicated that certain Amendments which he is going to allow to be discussed will be opposed by him. In this particular instance, I hope he will agree, whether he opposes or supports the Amendment in the Committee stage, that the hon. Member who moved it is genuine in his intentions to have the matter properly discussed, and I hope he will allow the Motion to be carried without a Division.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I expected to bear something from the two Noble Lords

who are the champions of the rights and privileges of Members of this House, and who were eloquent a little time ago on this subject. On that occasion they were very eloquent in asking that the House should have an opportunity of discussing an Amendment which has already been discussed for many hours upstairs. We have now before us a question which was not discussed at all and many hon. Members are anxious that the merits of it should receive consideration by the House. I have always understood that the Report stage was not merely an opportunity for putting the Bill in order but for discussing Amendments which the Committee has had no chance of discussing. All that we ask is for an opportunity to discuss the Clause, and I had hoped that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) would have had something to say on the subject. I have read a good many of the essays and books the Noble Lord has written, and I thought he had made himself the champion of privately-owned schools.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I am not discussing the merits of the new Clause, but the fact that the Noble Lord takes a certain view on schools of this character, and we should have a chance of discussing the merits of the proposal in respect of them.

Mr. PIKE: Surely the hon. Member realises that even if the Minister had accepted this new Clause, he could not give him an assurance that the Chairman of the Committee would call it?

Mr. BEVAN: All I am asking is that hon. Members who have been prevented from putting their case before the House should have an opportunity of doing so. It will be a complete frustration of Report stage if we are prevented from having a discussion on this important matter.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 239.

Division No. 198.]
AYES.
[6.2 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Banfield, John William
Broadbent, Colonel John


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Batey, Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cleary, J. J.
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pike, Cecil F.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, Stephen Owen
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dobbie, William
John, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stones, James


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lees-Jones, John
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harbord, Arthur
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. Chorlton and Mr. Fleming.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leckle, J. A.


Agnew Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Albery, Irving James
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Allen Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Enkine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Levy, Thomas


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Assheton Ralph
Flint, Abraham John
Little, Graham, Sir Ernest


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fox, Sir Gifford
Llewellin, Major John J.


Astor Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Balley Eric Alfred George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Balniel Lord
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Beit Sir Alfred L.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut. -Col. C. G. (Partick)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bernays Robert
Goldie, Noel B.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Birchall Major Sir John Dearman
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Blindell James
Gower, Sir Robert
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Bossom, A. C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bowater Col Sir T. Vansittart
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Macquisten Frederick Alexander


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Brown Ernest (Leith)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mason, Col. Glyn, K. (Croydon, N.)


Burnett John George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Butler Richard Austen
Hales, Harold K.
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hanbury, Cecil
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Castlereagh, viscount
Hartington, Marquess of
Mills Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Sir Charles, (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hornby, Frank
Morgan, Robert H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horobin, Ian M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Collins Rt. Hon Sir Godfrey
Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nation Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Norie-Miller, Francis


Cook Thomas A.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
North, Edward T.


Cooke Douglas
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Copeland Ida
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peake, Osbert


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Iveagh, Countess of
Penny, Sir George


Crossley, A. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Culverwell Cyril Tom
Jamieson, Douglas
Petherick, M.


Dalkeith Earl of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Newgton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Davies Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Davison Sir William Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Denman Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Despencer Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Drewe, Cedric
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Duckworth, George A. V.
Kimball, Lawrence
Rankin, Robert


Dugdale, Captain Thomas, Lionel
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rathbone, Eleanor


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dunglase Lord
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Ellis, Sir Geoffrey
Law, Sir Alfred
Rhys, Hon. Charles, Arthur U.




Rickards, George William
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Turton, Robert Hugh


Robinson, John Roland
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Soper, Richard
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spens, William Patrick
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, M. R A. (W'd'swth, Putney).
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandys, Duncan
Strauss, Edward A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Savery, Servington
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Selley, Harry R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Womersley, Sir Walter


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)



Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Major George Davies.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add "and of Clauses 37 and 38."
I hope to be able to advance substantial reasons why these two Clauses should be recommitted. The Minister of Health is already convinced that there cannot be too much discussion on certain aspects of the matter. He has already welcomed suggestions that matters which were discussed upstairs at great length should be discussed again on the Floor of the House, and I suggest that the question of the housing of rural workers, which is dealt with in Clauses 37 and 38, is a matter of great importance, and was not adequately discussed in the Committee. I am looking for support to the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hasting (Lord E. Percy)and the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who have shown special interest in matters which concern property owners, and in questions affecting rural housing. It is also a matter which it is said usually interests Conservative Members who sit for rural constituencies, and, therefore, I hope to have their support also. No one considers that the problem of rural housing has been adequately dealt with, and the House, I am sure, would not be wasting its time if later on we devoted some considerable attention to the question.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
We are now left in the position where we have to move a number of these Motions one after another in the hope that we may spot a winner. We are left
with no guidance as to whether the Motions are going to be accepted or rejected, because matters which were discussed ad nauseam upstairs have been accepted, and matters which were not discussed at all have been rejected. All we can do is to bring them forward one after another in the hope of catching the Minister off his guard. There is only one principle which can be advanced on a proposal as to whether a matter shall be discussed, and that is the importance of the issues which the House is asked to debate. All precedents have gone in consequence of the Minister's weakness this afternoon. If hon. Members walk into the Lobby against us, they will not be able to say that they did so because of the long established order of the House that what has been discussed in Committee shall not be considered on Report.
That is a frank violation of what the Government have already done. For hon. Members to go into the Lobby against us would be an expression of opinion that the issue we are seeking to discuss is not important enough to be discussed on the Report stage. If hon. Members who support the Government wish to have it said that the housing of rural workers is not important enough to be discussed again, they will vote against us, and we shall take good care that their constituents learn the value that they place on there housing of rural workers. If the Minister of Health has any regard for the opportunity of private Members to represent the wishes and interests of their constituents, he will give us the chance of discussion for which we are asking. I have not many rural workers in my constituency, and so I am
not pleading for my own constituency, but there are many hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee who should desire to put their case before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to give them that chance.

Sir BASIL PETO: In reply to the appeal of the hon. Member, I would point out that there are no Amendments on the Paper to Clauses 37 and 38. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any argument why these Clauses should be re-discussed.

6.17 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I have listened with the closest attention and greatest interest to the observations of hon. Members opposite, in an attempt to understand what appears to them to be my function on these Amendments. My function is to assist the House to understand whether recommittal is necessary for any purpose, and whether that purpose will be assisted by our deliberations. On this occasion I have failed to discover any reason in the observations of either hon. Member why the Clauses should be recommitted or that any purpose would be served by their recommittal. That these two Clauses are most interesting and most important and well deserve discussion, we all agree. But all the possibilities of re-discussion are available without recommittal. Recommittal is necessary only for limited purposes. Hon. Members opposite have not specified any purpose for which it is necessary in this case. There are the ordinary opportunities for discussion of the Clauses on Report and Third Reading. In those circumstances, and in view of what has been stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I do not, think it is essential that these Clauses should be recommitted, and I do not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

6.19 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: It is necessary to recall that the Minister has agreed that the House should have an opportunity of re-discussing a matter which was brought up by the hon. Member for Central Leeds

(Mr. Denman), though that matter was discussed for three or four days by the Standing Committee.

Mr. DENMAN: My whole point was that it was not discussed upstairs. I have before me reports of the discussions on Clause 59 by the Standing Committee, and there was not one word of discussion, or certainly no Division, in respect of the special provisions to which I have referred.

Dr. ADDISON: I am not concerned with the small point raised by the hon. Member. I am concerned with his desire to recommit the Bill for the discussion of the vital Clause affecting compensation where property is taken over by a local authority. The Minister knows that the discussion of the Clause was very prolonged upstairs. It gives rise to acute differences of opinion. Notwithstanding that prolonged discussion, the Minister agrees that it is appropriate that it should be re-discussed now. That is an entire violation of all the functions of the Orders of the House. But that is the right hon. Gentleman's decision. The same argument applies, but with less force, I agree, to the right hon. Gentleman's decision to accept the new Clause in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). Now comes a matter which was not discussed at any great length in Committee, and a matter which concerns not a small number of persons whose life interest in a business may be affected, but one which affects the contribution of local authorities to the housing of agricultural workers in every parish in England. If there is a matter of importance at all, surely it is this matter. It was not discussed at any great length in Committee. If we are to have Clauses re-committed by this extraordinary procedure, for which the Minister is responsible, surely here is a case where we ought to have a matter examined with great care. Quite insufficient has been done for the agricultural workers, and if opportunity occurs I would like to move that more be done.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 264.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[6.24 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Batey, Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bernays, Robert
Cleary, J. J.


Banfield, John William
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Davies, Stephen Owen
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobbie, William
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwan)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Leonard, William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Thorne, William James


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. John.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eastwood, John Francis
Kimball, Lawrence


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Assheton, Ralph
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leckle, J. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lees-Jones, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lonnox-Boyd, A. T.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Levy, Thomas


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Llewellin, Major John J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Blindell, James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Goff, Sir Park
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bossom, A. C.
Goldie, Noel B.
Loftus, Pierce O.


Boulton, W. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Granfell, E. C. (City of London)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grigg, Sir Edward
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guest Capt. Rt Hon. F. E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burnett, John George
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Tasweil (Brmly)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hales, Harold K.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Martin, Thomas B.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hanbury, Cecil
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harbord, Arthur
Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Heilgere, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streathsm)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hornby, Frank
Moreing, Adrian C.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Horne, Rt. Sir Robert S.
Morgan, Robert H.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Horobin, Ian M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cooke, Douglas
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Norie-Miller, Francis


Copeland, Ida
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
North, Edward T.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nunn, William


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peake, Osbert


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Iveagh, Countess of
Pearson, William G.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Penny, Sir George


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jamieson, Douglas
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jennings, Roland
Petherick, M.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Drewe, Cedric
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Ker, J. Campbell
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonal
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pike, Cecil F.




Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Rankin, Robert
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Rickards, George William
Soper, Richard
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ward, Irene Marv Bewick (Wallsend)


Robinson, John Roland
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Spens, William Patrick
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stones, James
Wise, Alfred R.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Withers, Sir John James


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Strauss, Edward A.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sandys, Duncan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Savery, Servington
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



Selley, Harry R.
Sutcliffe, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Sir Victor Warrender and Major




George Davies.

Mr. HICKS: I wish to move, after the words last added, to add:
and of the new Clause (Building materials) standing in the names of Mr. Hicks and Mr. McEntee.
Whatever reasons may have been advanced for other additions to this Motion, I am confident that equally strong and even stronger reasons can be produced for the addition which I now suggest. I do not know whether I shall be justified in following up the observation of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) as to moving these Amendments, in order to see if we could spot the winner—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I may shorten the proceedings by saying at this stage that I propose to put into operation the power which the House has given me of selection, and that I do not propose to accept any more Amendments to this Motion.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
We have had to-day an exhibition on the part of the Government which, I hope, for the sake of the House, will never be repeated. Never within living memory has any Government dreamt of accepting Amendments to a recommittal Motion.

Mr. T. SMITH: Not since Shakespeare's time.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister began, quite pro-
perly, by refusing to accept the first Amendment, but then in a moment of weakness—whether it was due to the eloquence of the Noble Lord or not I do not know—he set a new constitutional precedent by accepting two Amendments to the Motion thus permitting any Member of the House who wished to do so to seek to make further additions to the Motion. It allowed hon. Members to seek to reopen, in a way which brings us very close to the Standing Orders of the House, financial questions which normally would not be accepted because of the Money Resolution governing the Bill. To-day owing to the action of the right hon. Gentleman and but for your wise intervention, Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of the House would have been reduced to a farce. It would have been open to Members to move Amendment after Amendment adding Clause after Clause to the Motion. That is not the way in which this House has been run in the past and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman to-night will take as his bedside book Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" in order to find whether there is any parallel for the proceedings of this afternoon.
However, that is not the main point of my Motion. I wish to get a statement from the Government as to their intention now, about the time to be allowed for the remaining proceedings on this Bill. Already three hours of Parliamentary time have been wasted by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to make any small case about this matter. I rest my case for the reconsideration of the
allotted time on the ground that this House ought not to have to pay for the Minister's indiscretion. We spent 20 days in Committee on this Bill and no Member of that Committee can charge me with having tried to hold up the business. I sought reasonable opportunities for debate on the Amendments, in which my hon. Friends and I were interested. We did indeed on certain occasions support the Government and on one occasion we saved the Government from destruction, to the indignation of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—the friend of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). A very large amount of the time spent in Committee, I may now disclose to the House, was taken up by the Members of a group who in the Committee were known as "the awkward squad," of whom the Noble Lord was the leader, very ably assisted by the hon. Member for South Croydonand the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp).
Now the Bill comes back to the House after 20 days in Committee, and we are told that there are to be three days for all its remaining stages. But we discover to-day that there is are committal Motion on the Paper. In any event, such a Motion was bound to take up a certain amount of time, and here we find ourselves at 20 minutes to seven o'clock in the evening just about to begin the Report stage which normally ought to have been started at about four o'clock. Not only so, but the recommittal of these Clauses has opened up possibilities ofdiscussion—subject, of course, to the Amendments being called by you, Mr. Speaker—which were not realised by us when the original statement was made that there were to be three days Debate on the remaining stages. I suggest that there ought to be a reconsideration now by the Government of the time allotted to the Report stage and Third Reading. I have not been guilty of fractious opposition on this Bill but I am bound to say that the Government will repent this waste of time unless they are prepared to make it up. I could not and my hon. Friends could not consent to what is virtually only two days discussion on the remaining stages of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted to two of his own supporters that there
ought to have been more time for discussion.
I do not want to be unreasonable, and I do not think I am putting it too high if I ask the Government to give us one more day. I think we are entitled to one day for the Third Reading. There are pages of Amendments on the Report stage, and we have really only two full days left for discussion. That is miserably inadequate, having regard to the fact that "the awkward squad" have put down the usual number of Amendments, and will no doubt be heard if those Amendments are called, while we on this side will have a claim to be heard if you; Mr. Speaker, decide to call our Amendments. In the time available, if the Report stage is to be concluded by Friday evening, I submit that there cannot be a full discussion of such Amendments as are called, and if the Report stage is to be carried over until Monday, there cannot be an adequate final discussion on the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to make this concession in view of the waste of time which has been caused. I am not blaming either the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) or the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) for that waste of time. The waste of time is due to the right hon. Gentleman and he should be prepared to accept the responsibility. I hope that the Government will agree to give us another day. It would not have been an unreasonable request, even if we had started the discussion of the Bill immediately after Questions. It is certainly not unreasonable now, in view of the results of this faux pas on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that hon. Members opposite who are interested in many phases of this question will support me in my Motion, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us adequate time for the further stages of the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not intend to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentle man, any words which will be unnecessarily controversial, because the House will agree with me that what we most desire is to get on with the Housing Bill, and to give it that full consideration it deserves in a spirit of friendly
consideration and without any unnecessary causes of disagreement before we even start on our business. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's description of to-day's proceedings. I am not going to argue where the exact responsibility lies for the time they have occupied, for that might raise a controversial matter, but I would say that the procedure of His Majesty's Government and, I think, of my friend son this side of the House, has been inspired throughout by a single desire to get this Bill discussed under the most favourable terms possible. As regards the procedure, there has been no departure from the strict rules of order. In the strong hands of the Chair we are safe in that respect. As regards the spirit of the procedure, there has been no departure from that either. No one is more entitled to express an opinion on that subject than my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and if I have his support, with his long knowledge of the procedure and practice of the House, I have support which is strong indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)raised the question of the time to be given to this Bill. That must be judged in a purely realist spirit. We have not yet begun the discussion of the Bill, and until we have done so and made some little progress we shall not be able to discover how long it is likely to take and what time we shall require.

Mr. GREENWOOD: rose—

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that I had better finish what I was saying. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me as I was coming to my material point. We cannot tell what time we shall want until we come to the actual work of discussing the Bill, but it is very far from the intention of the Government to hurry the House or to put on any pressure with a Bill of such great importance and of such great complexity and interest. The fact that we spent 20 days on it in Committee

upstairs shows that it is an interesting Bill which requires full discussion. If in the course of the proceedings we find we are being pressed for time, I suggest that communications should be made through the usual channels, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will receive sympathetic consideration, but it will be premature to come to any decision about time now. With that assurance as regards the intention of the Government, I hope that the House will allow the business to proceed.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the question I should have put if he had permitted me to do so when he was speaking. The Government thought in their wisdom that Thursday, Friday and Monday gave adequate time for the Bill as it was when it left the Standing Committee. It is now ten minutes to seven, and three hours have already gone. Moreover, the House has accepted certain Amendments which will permit a prolonged discussion if Mr. Speaker chooses to call the Amendments. If the time-table were right for the Bill as it was printed, obviously it is in adequate now because of what has happened today. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is prepared to discuss the question of time later, that does not seem to me to be very satisfactory. I put this question to him specifically. In view of the fact that the Government thought the time was reasonable before to-day's happenings, can it be regarded as reasonable now in view of the time we have taken to-day, and in view of the fact that the area of the discussion has been widened? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree now to give us more time? The House is entitled to more time because the area of discussion is larger than it was, and the amount of time available is shorter.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 263.

Division No. 200.]
AYES.
[6.52 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cleary, J. J.
Dobbie, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Edwards, Charles


Banfield, john William
Cove, William G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Stephen Owen
Gardner, Benjamin Walter


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
Rea, Walter Russell


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H (Darwen)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry
Thorne, William James


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
White, Henry Graham


Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir William
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Paling, Wilfred
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen



Lawson, John James
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Law, Sir Alfred


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Leckle, J. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eastwood, John Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lees-Jones, John


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman, (B'k'nh'd)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, Thomas


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Assheton, Ralph
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loftus, Pierce C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gtossop, C. W. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bernays, Robert
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goff, Sir Park
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Blindell, James
Goldie, Noel B.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bossom, A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Boulton, W. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd S Chisw'k)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Burghley, Lord
Hanbury, Cecil
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Burnett, John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Harbord, Arthur
Moreing, Adrian C.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morgan, Robert H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester. City)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Munro, Patrick


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Norie-Miller, Francis


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
North, Edward T.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nunn, William


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Holdsworth, Herbert
O'Connor, Terence James


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Osbert


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pearson, William G.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Horobin, Ian M.
Penny, Sir George


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Percy, Lord Eustace


Conant, R. J. E.
Howard, Tom Ferrest
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Petherick, M.


Cooke, Douglas
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Copeland, Ida
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pike, Cecil F.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsbotham, Harwald


Croom-Johnton, R. P.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Crossley, A. C.
Jennings, Roland
Rankin, Robert


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, James. C. (Stirling)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Ker, J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davison, Sir William Henry.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rickards, George William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Robinson, John Roland


Drewe, Cedric
Kimball, Lawrence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward




Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sotheron-Estcourt. Captain T. E.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Stones, James
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Sandys, Duncan
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Savery, Servington
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Selley, Harry R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Withers, Sir John James


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Summersby, Charles H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oake)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)



Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thompson, Sir Luke
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Major George Davies and Dr.


Soper, Richard
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Morris-Jones.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 55.

Division No. 201.]
AYES.
[7.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colons Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Iveagh, Countess of


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jamieson, Douglas


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jennings, Roland


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Drewe, Cedric
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Assheton, Ralph
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Ker, J. Campbell


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Eastwood, John Francis
Kimball, Lawrence


Balniel, Lord
Eills, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leckle, J. A.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Erskine-Bolst, Cant. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bernays, Robert
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lees-Jones, John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blindell, James
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fox, Sir Gifford
Levy, Thomas


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Braithwaite, Maj. A. H. (Yorks, E. R.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goff, Sir Park
Loftus, Pierce C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goldie, Noel B.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burghley, Lord
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Burnett, John George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hales, Harold K.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir. M.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Martin, Thomas B.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Harbord, Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. Monmouth)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Colfox, Major William Philip
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morgan, Robert H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cooke, Douglas
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Munro, Patrick


Copeland, Ida
Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Craven-Ellis, William
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Norie-Miller, Francis


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Horobin, Ian M.
North, Edward T.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William


Crouley, A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Connor, Terence James


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Summersby, Charles H.


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sutcliffe, Harold


Pearson, William G.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Peat, Charles U.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Penny, Sir George
Sandys, Duncan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Savery, Servington
Thompson Sir Luke


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Selley, Harry R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Petherick, M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somervell, Sir Donald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rankin, Robert
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Soper, Richard
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Rickards, George William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross, Ronald D.
Stones, James
Wise, Alfred R.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Strauss, Edward A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Rimed, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sir Walter Womersley and




Commander Southby.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Rea, Walter Russell


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H (Darwen)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker John Joseph


Davies, Stephen Owen
Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major James



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen



Question "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 10, page 7, line 22, Clause72, page 57, line 2, Clause 78, page 59, line 33, and Clause 85, page 63, line 16, and of the new Clause (Provisions as to apparatus of statutory undertakers in land dealt with by local authorities under the Housing Acts), and of the Amendment to the Title, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Hilton Young, and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 61, page 50, line 40, standing in the name of Mr. Denman, and of the new Clause (Compensation for owner-occupier) standing in the name of Lord Eustace Percy.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Enforcement of foregoing provisions.)

7.11 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, at the end to insert:
Provided that such a prosecution may be instituted against the local authority themselves by another person with the consent of the Attorney-General.
(2) The local authority may serve upon the occupier of a dwelling-house which is overcrowded in such circumstances as to render him guilty of an offence notice in writing requiring him to abate the overcrowdng before the expiration of fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice, land, if at anytime within three months from the expiration of that period the house is overcrowded, the local authority may make complaint to a court of summary jurisdictions and thereupon the court shall, by their warrant in form set out in the Schedule to the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, or in a form
to the like effect, order vacant possession of the dwelling-house to be given to the landlord within such period, not being less than fourteen nor more than twenty-eight days, as they may determine.
Any expenses incurred by the local authority under this sub-section in securing the giving of possession of a dwelling-house to the landlord may be recovered by them from him summarily as a civil debt.
The Clause which I rise to move contains two different matters, both of which are the result of prolonged discussion in the Committee, and which resulted in agreement. The Clause which I putdown expresses the substance of the agreement arrived at. The first matter is this: The Committee is aware that the Bill is based upon a standard of overcrowding enacted by law, an offence against which is an offence against the law on the part of the occupier of the house or the owner of the house, unless he takes any steps to deal with the matter. There you have the offence of overcrowding on the part of the occupier or the owner of the house. The next point to observe is that the Bill also provides that the only persons who can prosecute for such an offence are the local authority. That is because they are the persons who are interested, and in order to prevent frivolous prosecutions. A close analysis of this state of affairs in the Committee raised the following suggestion from Members of the Committee. In the old phrase, "Who shall guard the guardians?". Where the local authority itself is the owner of the house, who is to enforce the law against overcrowding, since the prosecution can only be by the local authority? In these circumstances, it would be only the local authority that could prosecute itself, and so you would have something in the nature of reductio ad absurdum. In reply to that, I pointed out that the Bill was originally drafted on this basis, that the real sanctions were the default Clauses. But, again, in reply to that, it was urged by Members of the Committee, particularly I think from the point of view of constitutional law, that there should be no offence which could escape altogether the sanctions of the law, and if the local authorities were committing an offence it was contrary to our general legal principles that there should be no way in which that offence could be punished.
That seemed to be an argument entitled to prevail, and it is made to prevail in the first part of the Clause I am now moving, which decrees that a local authority is to be liable for prosecution if it breaks the law, like any other owner of a house in question. I should like to make it as clear as I did in Committee that it is not my belief that the local authorities of the country will need this spur to the performance of their duties. It is not introduced because I believe it to be an essential weapon to get the order obeyed. It is introduced out of regard for our constitutional law. There is a safeguard to prevent frivolous prosecutions of a local authority, a safeguard also very familiar to us in our legal machinery, that a prosecution shall not be undertaken without the sanction of the Attorney-General. That is the best of all safeguards against vexatious prosecutions.
I turn to the second part of the Clause, which deals with a different matter. This also expresses an agreement arrived at after close discussion on the Committee stage. Under the Bill, if there is a breach of the law in respect of overcrowding, an obligation is imposed upon the landlord to obtain possession of the premises, thus putting an end to the breach of the law by the effective method of turning out the law-breaking tenant. It was pointed out that to cast upon the landlord the obligation of taking legal proceedings, might introduce some awkwardness and that it was, perhaps, a somewhat novel obligation, though I think the real weight of the argument was on the awkwardness of such procedure, and I was asked to see whether it was not possible to introduce some more practical and businesslike method of obtaining possession of the premises. It is such procedure which is proposed in this part of the Amendment. Instead of making the landlord himself take proceedings to recover possession, the local authority themselves shall be entitled to go to the court, in this case a court of summary jurisdiction, and obtain possession on behalf of the owner when there is a breach of the law against overcrowding being committed on the premises. Certainly that is a more businesslike proceeding, and I have no doubt it is the method which will be adopted if these powers are granted to local authorities. I cannot hold that the second part of
the Amendment is novel, because it closely follows the wording of Section 39 of the Act of 1930. I commend the whole Amendment to the House as affecting the improvements which we were asked in Committee to introduce.

7.18 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman took considerable trouble to make himself clear, but I frankly admit that I am not yet certain as to the exact purpose of the first few words of the Amendment—those which give power to prosecute a local authority. Is my interpretation right that this is a power to prosecute a local authority if it should fail to do its duty to stop overcrowding in its own houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is a power to prosecute local authorities for any breach of their duties as a landlord, but not in relation to their duties as health authorities, which is another matter.

Sir P. HARRIS: That makes it quite clear. I think the local authorities will like to know in what position they stand. No one would suggest that local authorities should be in a better position than the private owners of houses. On the contrary, it is their duty to be model landlords, and to set an example to private interests. Before we part with the Amendment I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to inform the Committee whether he has reason to believe that any considerable number of local authorities have been permitting overcrowding which could have been prevented if they had taken action. To my knowledge—it is no secret—localauthorities in London have allowed overcrowding. I could give instances of it. But as far as my knowledge goes they have only permitted it reluctantly because alternative accommodation could not be found. In almost every instance that I know of, and I have had a long experience, the overcrowding has arisen from the natural expansion of the family, which has brought the house or tenement within the scope of the regulations against overcrowding. Already there is provision to meet cases of that kind by exemption, by licences, and before we make this reflection on local authorities, because it amounts to a reflection [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can suggest that local authorities in
any part of the country have been deliberately permitting overcrowding which could have been prevented by action on their part.

7.21 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: As I was responsible in Committee for urging that this provision should be introduced into the law, I should like to say something upon the Amendment. I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has inadvertently confused a simple issue. There is no question of any stigma resting upon local authorities through the insertion of these words. One cannot discriminate between the position of local authorities and private individuals in the matter of overcrowding. Overcrowding is overcrowding whether it is permitted in the houses of a local authority or of private individuals. Many cases have come to my notice in which the house of a private owner is overcrowded against his wishes because there is no alternative accommodation for the people, and no doubt exactly the same circumstances apply in the case of houses owned by local authorities. Therefore, there is no question of any stigma. The sole reason for inserting this Amendment, for which many of us are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, is to place all overcrowding on the same basis, and to make it clear that if there is overcrowding the law will operate. As the Bill stood originally it was difficult to see how the law could be made to operate in the case of houses owned by a local authority. As to the second part of the Amendment, it is to enable the law to act with expedition and to deal in the first instance with the person who is responsible for the overcrowding. The Committee ought to thank the Minister for having thus clarified the law.

7.23 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: There is one small point which I should like to have cleared up. The Minister has told us that the first few words of his Amendment apply only to local authorities in their position as landlords. It seems to me that as the Clause will run after the Amendment has been inserted, that provision would apply to other questions in the first nine Clauses of this Bill, because the Clause would say:
It shall be the duty of a local authority to enforce the foregoing provisions of this
part of this Act as respects dwelling houses in their district, and a prosecution for an offence against the said provisions shall not be instituted otherwise than by the local authority, provided that such a prosecution may be instituted against the local authority themselves by another person with the consent of the Attorney-General.
That would enable a prosecution to be brought against the local authority for any matter contained in the first nine Clauses of the Bill. In regard to the first Clause, under which it is the duty of the local authority to inspect dwelling houses, a private person could indict the local authority for not having carried out its duty in that respect. That is not the intention, and the right hon. Gentleman might consider the desirability of clarifying this position on the Report stage.

7.25 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am obliged to the Noble Lord for his observations, with which I warmly agree. I think that what he said with reference to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was true. This is no sort of reflection upon local authorities, either as regards the past or the future. It is only a question of a legal principle or legal form. As regards the observations of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), I am advised that a prosecution can relate only to offences in respect of overcrowding.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: It says an offence "as respects dwelling-houses."

Sir H. YOUNG: I am advised that the position is as I have said, but I will certainly look into the point the hon. Member has raised in order to assure myself that the view I have stated is correct, and perhaps he will be content with that at the present stage.

7.27 p.m.

Major MILNER: I do not object to the general principle of the Amendment, but the wording of it strikes me as being rather curious. The second part says that the local authority may serve on the occupier of a dwelling-house a notice requiring him to abate overcrowding before the expiration of 14 days, and proceeds:
and if at any time within three months from the expiration of that period the house is overcrowded
certain consequences will follow. It seems to be quite possible for the tenant
to abate the overcrowding and, indeed, to leave the house and for some other person to come in within three months and to overcrowd the house. I assume that it is the intention of the Government that the complaint to the court of summary jurisdiction shall be made in regard to the original tenant who failed to comply with the notice to abate the overcrowding within 14 days, but as the Amendment is drawn it would appear to be possible for the original person to whom the notice is given to have abated the nuisance or, indeed, to have left and for some other person to have come in and for that other person, the house being overcrowded, to be subject to a complaint before the court of summary jurisdiction. I suggest that the Amendment should be so worded as to ensure that the complaint to the court of summary jurisdiction is made in respect of the original person upon whom the notice was served, and that it should not be possible for it to be applicable to an entirely different person. This matter might receive the attention of the Solicitor-General.

7.29 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I rise in response to the invitation of the hon. and gallant Member. I do not think that any mistake will arise. This Amendment is to enable possession of a house to be obtained in a case where a landlord who ought to have got possession has failed to do so. I think the Amendment is rightly worded. A notice is served on the occupier, and if at anytime during the next three months the house is found to be overcrowded, possession can be obtained.

Major MILNER: Overcrowded either by that occupier or another?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Overcrowded either by that occupier or another. I think the intention of the Amendment might be defeated if during the three months another family were allowed to occupy the house. I do not think there has been any mistake.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I am not quite clear on one point which is, does the first part apply to the second part? If the local authority, as landlord, do not take action against themselves, who is it that applies
to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order against the local authority? If, under the first part, another person does it, is it within the meaning of the provision for the landlord to take action against himself on his own behalf?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The machinery of part two is not applicable where the local authority is also the landlord. The machinery of part one can be used for bringing a local authority to book.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Solicitor-General to look further into the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), because the point is a legitimate one? This, as I understand it, is the position: The offence is committed in the first place, 14 days' notice is given and if, at any time during the next three months, overcrowding is permitted, possession of the house can be obtained. If the three months go by without that happening, the process has to start afresh with a new 14 days and a new three months. That is intended, quite clearly, in relation to the same occupier throughout. If that is not the purpose, the effect is to deprive a man who happens to come into a house after the 14 days' notice has been given, but who has no knowledge of the notice, of the rights that are given to another person. One person, let us suppose, has committed an offence and is told about it. He abates the offence, but the notice nevertheless has been served. In six weeks' time he goes out, and another tenant comes in, and there is overcrowding. The tenant does not get 14 days' notice, and the authorities can secure an eviction order against him without having given him an opportunity to correct the offence with which he is charged. It appears to be necessary to put that position right when the Bill goes to another place, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will look into the question.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: Is there no way of simplifying the procedure for the local authority? Every time the local authority have to censure anybody for overcrowding, have they solemnly to pass a resolution under the seal of the local authority authorising prosecution and authorising the clerk of the council to
take the necessary steps in regard to proceedings? That seems to be rather unnecessary. I cannot find anything in the Bill—I confess I have not looked very carefully—to make that procedure unnecessary in regard to the ordinary law of the land. My second point is: Against whom is the summons to be issued? Is it to be against the lord mayor, burgesses and citizens of the city of X? On whom is it to be served? These matters require simplification if the procedure is to be carried out without unnecessary expense and delay.

7.35 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Bill does not make any alteration in the general law affecting the legal status of local authorities. To do so would be quite improper in a Housing Bill. The existing procedure regarding summonses against a local authority under the law remains, as I am sure it should remain, completely unaffected by the Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 61.—(Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.)

7.36 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in page 50, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the dwelling-house has been occupied by the owner since the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the amount so payable shall be doubled.
May I get one detail out of the way before I come to the merits of the Amendment The date, 1st July, 1934, is not in any way an inspired date, and if hon. Members think there is any better date I am entirely open to accept their decision. The only point is that the owner-occupier who is to benefit must have been inoccupation for a substantial time before the order is made, so as to prevent any kind of jerrymandering or collusive agreement between the occupier-owner and the slum landlord for the purpose of dividing the loot.
I pass from that detail to the merits of the Amendment. Clause 61 provides that in respect of well-maintained houses compensation shall be paid on terms set out in Sub-section (2), either in relation to the amount spent during the preceding five years or to a figure based on
one and a half times the rateable value of the house. My suggestion is that where the house is owned by the person who occupies it, there is a special case entitling the person to a higher rate of compensation. Some reference to the Amendment has been made in the earlier Debates this afternoon. I have heard astonishing statements about what went on in the Committee upstairs. One hon. Member said that the question of compensation was considered for several days, and another declared that the Amendment covered only a small point. As to the several days: The Clause only occupied a portion of a single day upstairs. I have since obtained a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that out of 32 columns that were spoken on that morning, the discussion on Clause 59, which was then the number of the Clause, took only 11 columns, and the special case of the owner-occupier was neither considered nor decided upon, on any Amendment.
As to the case for the owner-occupier, in any town in which slum clearance has been prosecuted with anything like the energy with which it is being prosecuted in Leeds—very few towns would rise to that standard—and wherever it has been vigorously prosecuted, the administrators have come up against cases of real hardship suffered by people who not only own but have occupied their house for many years. There is a difference between a slum landlord who is making profits out of the misfortunes of his fellows, and the owner-occupier who has saved money and bought the house in which he or she lives, and who hopes to spend, perhaps, the concluding years of life in safety and security in that house. I suggest that in every case the owner-occupier of a slum house would be a thrifty person, and also an elderly one. The young and prosperous man does not buy a slum house and live in it. Such slum houses have probably been brought years back, and the old persons inhabiting them have become almost a part of the architecture of the houses in which they live.
Everybody who has seen slum clearance in operation knows the human tragedy of uprooting these old people from the surroundings to which they have become thoroughly accustomed. We all agree that it is necessary that that uprooting
should take place, but surely we might exercise a little sympathy and offer the people concerned a little more effective compensation than the £10 or £15 offered by the Clause at present. There is an essential difference between a person who is offering the public a commodity which is not up to standard, and the person who himself is consuming the commodity. We recognise that difference in the case of milk, because we do not demand the same standard of production from the person who is going to drink the milk produced on his own premises as we do from the person who intends to sell it. We are right in being perhaps more severe upon the person who is receiving rents from slum houses and who has regarded the property as an investment and is earning profit from it, than we are on the person who is residing in the property, and probably hoping to spend the declining years of life in it. There, I suggest, is the real ground for differentiation.
May I further suggest that this is not likely to be an expensive concession? The cases cannot be very numerous. I I have no means of estimating what their number is, but common sense tells us that in normal areas the persons who occupy and own these houses will be few, and if provision were made for those cases in a scheme involving millions of pounds, ratepayers would be the last to resent it.
I should like to give one specific case as a sample, because one case is better than a good many generalisations. It is that of a man and wife, relatively young. This is a much more favourable case than some which I could produce. Their ages are 53 and 43 respectively. The man bought the house for £178 and loaned a further £50, and the couple have lived in the house since 1927. The man, at the date when the order was made, was a labourer in the employment of the Leeds Corporation. His house is condemned and he gets nothing more than site value. My Amendment will be too late for him. If that case arose after this Amendment were passed and if the man had kept his house in decent condition—if it had been a "well-maintained house," in the words of the Amendment—he would be entitled to double the compensation he would get if he had been a mere landlord letting the house to another person. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Swindon (Dr. Addison) should have said that this is a small point. It may be a small point to him, but let me assure him it is not a small point to those poor people in my constituency of Central Leeds who run the risk of losing not only their houses but all the savings they have put into them. In asking the Government to accept this Amendment, I am sure the Committee Will be in sympathy with it, not only because of its common sense, but because of the practical sympathy which it offers to a poor and deserving class of people.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The case for the Amendment has been concisely and lucidly put by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), and, before the Minister thinks of rejecting it, I would ask him to consider a perfectly typical case of a poor person who has bought a house of a rateable value of between £6 and £8. This transaction has involved him in a capital expenditure of between £150 and £200, and has consumed savings which he had accumulated over a long period of time. This individual may have been compelled to take this particular type of accommodation, because until recently there has been no alternative open to him. It may be true, as the hon. Member for Central Leeds said, that such cases are not numerous, but they are certainly numerous enough to cause a widespread feeling of injustice and resentment when, thanks to an ambitious scheme of clearance, such premises are declared to be unfit, although it is admitted they may have been well maintained. In the case to which I am referring, the man has lived in that dwelling without damage, injury or inconvenience to himself or his neighbours, but suddenly through a clearance scheme he is confronted with the loss of his savings, except, as things now stand, to the extent of about £20, which is made up of some sum between £9 and £12 and the site value in addition. This Amendment is by no means anything in the nature of a grandiose or extravagant proposal. It merely proposes to raise the compensation in that perfectly typical kind of case to about £30. I do not think that the Committee can consider this proposition as in any sense prodigal or excessively generous. Will hon. Members
in the Labour party kindly do what they are always urging others to do—to consider the lot of the least fortunate sections of the community? I ask the Committee to imagine the plight of these people faced with the loss of all that they have saved. We are dealing here with a very human problem, and, if the Amendment is accepted, it will go some way towards abating the rigour of a serious hardship.

7.48 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if in discussing the Amendment I dealt with the new Clause which I have put on the Paper. It covers precisely the same ground, although the remedy proposed is slightly different. I certainly should not wish to raise another discussion on the Clause later.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think it would be convenient if the suggestion of the Noble Lord were followed.

Lord E. PERCY: My Clause differs from the Amendment in two ways. In the first place, it is proposed to date back further the effect of the special compensation to an owner-occupier. There again, as the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) said, that is a detail but a most important one. I will return to it later in my remarks. The second point in which my Clause differs is that I wish to be logical. I know that is always a serious disadvantage in politics, but when one is dealing with the legal rights of citizens there is something to be said in favour of proceeding so far as one can on principle. The hon. Member for Central Leeds has said that in principle the owner-occupier is in a different position. He is not dealing in a commodity as in the course of trade. He is in the possession of a home. He does not wish to dispose of it, and he is entitled to protection, in my judgment, because he wishes neither to let nor to sell, and therefore he has a life interest in it which should entitle him to compensation on the basis of the value of that house to him as a freehold home, exempting him from rent. That is what I mean by life interest. I mean that he should be compensated on the basis of such an annuity as will compensate him for being obliged to give up a freehold home and to pay rent.
I do not know whether I need add anything to what the hon. Member for Central Leeds has said about the difference in principle between the owner-occupier and what is generally known as the slum landlord. I confess that, in discussing this matter with various people and in reading the proceedings of the Committee upstairs, I have been horrified to find that there seems to be a general feeling that you cannot deal with an owner-occupier differently from anyone else. I can only say that if your political principles and your principles regarding legislation cannot fit the obvious difference which all of us feel to exist between the two cases, then indeed there must be something very wrong with your principles.
Let me deal with the question of the extent of the wrongs which we are trying to remedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds is right in saying that, taking the country as a whole, this is a small problem financially, because the number of owner-occupiers generally in great industrial cities of this country is very small. Where you especially tend to get the owner-occupier is in what I generally call for the purpose of shorthand phrasing the Elizabethan slum—the really old part of a town which is an anachronism in the sense that it was built hundreds of years ago when the standards were completely different, but which has always been a respectable place of residence, a place into which people have not been forced by the play of economic necessities and industrial employment, but where they have chosen to live. You will find that sort of position in South Coast towns like my own constituency of Hastings. You will find it in Brighton, where the medical officer of health has publicly called attention to the appalling problem created by the number of owner-occupiers in clearance areas.
I cannot sufficiently express my feelings of horror at the hardships, at the awful sense of injustice created in a respectable area like the old town of Hastings by even a few cases of this kind, though in that area the number of cases reaches afar higher proportion of all the occupiers than in an industrial city like Leeds. Quite apart from the merits of the particular individuals affected and their hardships and their wrongs, I would
say that even if it were justifiable for this Committee to say we will do evil in order that good may come, even if we were to take an attitude like that and to close our eyes to wrong and do an injustice because we do not see a remedy, yet on the ground of public policy be sure of this, that in a country like this where local administration and local public opinion is characterised by a feeling of kindliness and neighbourliness you will not stir up local authorities and public opinion to reform housing conditions if the only way in which those conditions can be remedied is to inflict injustices of this kind on the owner-occupier.
Let me add that I would press in principle an Amendment to meet the needs of the owner-occupier to a Division even if I were the only person to go into the Lobby in favour of it. I feel more strongly on the subject than I can express. Speaking frankly, I do not care about the questions of compensation for the property owner. I think on grounds of public policy it may be sound policy to be rather more generous to the property owner, but he after all has been dealing in goods in the way of trade which he knows has been a dangerous trade, a trade which he knows on grounds of public policy the State might have to step in and regulate. I do not feel a great deal of enthusiasm for the woes of the property owner generally, though later we shall have a word to say on other Amendments as to the machinery, but when you come to the case of the owner-occupier you are dealing with a wholly different principle, a wholly different set of considerations, and, unless you are going to meet the real claims of these owner-occupiers, you will be dealing a blow at the whole conception of the ownership of property by the small man. Those of us who believe that the future of society probably lies in the direction of what one might call a co-operative commonwealth, based on the ownership of property in quite small quantities by the largest number of individuals, hold that to ignore the rights of owner-occupiers in a Measure like this would be to strike a blow at the whole conception of future society.
One more word on this subject of dating the operation of this Amendment back. I believe there are other hon. Friends of mine who will have something
to say, more forcibly than I should say it, on the individual horrors that have happened in various parts of the country and about the utter dereliction of some of these men and women. It is not difficult in practice and it is not expensive, looked at nationally, to date the whole of the policy of such a scheme of compensation back for four years; and, if we can do it, we certainly should do it.
I should also like to say a word about the particular form of compensation which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) suggests. I dislike very much basing this special compensation on this concession to goad house owners in the way suggested. After all, what is the character of many of these houses owned by these owner-occupiers in such an area as I have been describing? The houses themselves are not decayed or tumbled-down. They are insanitary and unfit for human habitation by reason of the manner of their construction. They are often back-to-back houses, and they may be houses built up against a cliff side. Where the structure of a house is sound and in fairly good condition the working-man who invests his small fortune in the house and retires to it in the evening of his days—with no children, but just himself and his wife—is not going to spend large sums of money on repairs. He is certainly not going to keep a record of what he does spend, and the idea of basing your compensation on the keeping of an elaborate system of accounts by the owner-occupier is absurd. And it has nothing whatever to do with the peculiar merits of the case. These are very often people who cannot be expected to spend considerable sums of money in repairs. They are living in a decent house by themselves and to base your compensation on repairs is, I think, wrong. I would much prefer to see the owner-occupier dealt with on some other basis such as the value of his life interest.
I really do appeal to the Government to think again on this question and to retire from their position—if it is theirposition—that you cannot distinguish between the owner-occupier and the property owner. I feel sure that position is an untenable position in principle and that it is not even tenable in administrative practice. Do not let the Government be led away—as I know from my own experience that Departmental Ministers are apt to be led away—by the pressure
of administrators who want to have as few complications as possible in their system of administration. That is why bureaucracy always leads to injustice because the overbearing feeling of the administrator is: Do let my lines of administration be simple. This is especially so when things have to be administered through regulations from the Minister to the local authority, so that any complication becomes more complicated. Let us look beyond these administrative difficulties and look at the real central social principles involved. Then I am sure it will be recognised that it is necessary to make some concession from the point of view of the owner-occupier.

8.5 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I think there is probably a strong case for the special treatment of the owner-occupier in certain cases in such areas as I represent. It is understandable that an old sailor may have different standards of comfort and sanitation from those of the ordinary citizen in the big town, like Leeds, Bradford, or London. There are undoubtedly cases of that kind. But I think before we take this course we should bear in mind this point. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the local authority—and I speak with some experience—buying out an individual owner quite apart from the slum clearance basis. We are dealing now, not really with this Bill, but with that introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Health—the Act of Parliament which provides for slum clearance. The finances of that slum clearance are rather peculiar. It does not do what we used to do when the Noble Lord presided over the Housing Committee—share the cost of slum clearance between the local authority and the Exchequer.
The present procedure is to pay so much per person rehoused. As a matter of fact, the kind of person we have in view, if he is displaced as the owner occupier must have a fresh house provided for him by the local authority. It is provided then that the local authority gets financial assistance from the State on the basis of the persons rehoused. On the other hand, I think I am right in saying that, if instead of a man being rehoused a capital sum is provided in compensation and he finds his own home, then the particular financial assistance
from the State will not be forthcoming. I think that is the basis of the Act of 1930. This is the reason why some of us opposed the re-committal, and the Committee will see how we are led astray. We are putting all sorts of liability on the local authorities but we as a House are not going to provide any assistance from the taxpayers' money. I think the Noble Lord has made out a case for some kind of special treatment, but we have to be very careful that we are not putting a heavy burden on the local authority—on a town like Hastings for example. I am pretty sure there is nothing to prevent a local authority like Hastings assuming that burden if they so desire.

8.9 p.m.

Mrs. COPELAND: I would like to support the Amendment of the Noble Lord to put back the date for the compensation of the owner-occupier. I would like to say something about the injustice that this date, 20th December, 1934, would cause, especially in the city of Stoke-on-Trent. This city was the very first to come in with the Government's scheme. They immediately, in the summer of 1934, cleared several large areas, with the result that many owner-occupiers were dispossessed; and it led to very great indignation. What will be the position of these people now, if the owner-occupier is only to get compensation as from 30th December, 1934? I speak from sad experience, because in my constituency there are a great many of these people. They are small people who have saved and who have put all their savings into their house. Their houses represent the savings of a lifetime, and they can only just eke out their existence with their house.
There were many sad tragedies that occurred on account of this, and I should like to mention one especially. It was the case of a woman who owned her own house in which she had a small shop. When she was dispossessed she found herself penniless in the street and she put her head into a gas oven. There was also another tragedy in a street close by where a man found himself in a similar position. I do not think that the Minister is aware of the terrible distress that happens in an industrial area under this rule. These people are poor, hardworking folk. They have done their best and put their money into these houses,
and it is not their fault that the houses are old-fashioned and have to be destroyed. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and that he will realise that these things which I have been telling him are facts. They are not things quoted from hearsay; they are true; I know these people. I feel certain that the Members of the Opposition will understand what I am talking about, because they know these sort of cases. These are not well-to-do people who have houses and who can afford to put them into good repair. They are all poor, hard-working folk, and it is for them that I plead.

8.12 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: In all my long experience of the House of Commons I never remember the House or the Committee being more stirred than it has been by the speeches to which we have listened on this subject. I cannot see how any question of party political prejudice can come into thematter—and I am sure that it does not. This is really a question of humanity. A man who lives in his own house is not a landlord in the accepted sense of the term; he is an occupier. Let me say that I agree with my Noble Friend to this extent on the subject of the general compensation of the landlord. I have never pressed for compensation under Clause. 61 for the ordinary landlord; I have always proposed it for the owner-occupier.
I do not want to spoil the case by attempting to add to it, but I would like to mention one instance which I think utterly disgraceful, and one which reflects the gravest discredit upon the municipality concerned. This was a case in which the owner-occupier of a house was a man who had lived in that house for some 20 or 30 years. He received a derisory sitevalue—on such a valuation as never ought to have been put in. The man could not get a house; he was penniless. And what did the local authority do? It is hardly conceivable, but what they did was this: They said, "Very well, you can stay on as our tenant in this house." That was in the house that they had condemned, and there that man remained. When things happen like that, I have no patience with the Minister or anybody else who says that you must always trust the local authorities. In some cases, you cannot do that. It is true that these are excep-
tional cases and that this country is fortunate, generally, both in its local authorities and in its housing authorities—more fortunate, perhaps, than any other country. But there are cases like that which occur, although even then it is not so much the fault of the local authority as of the legislation which permits these things to happen.
Opinion is gradually working up on this question all over the country. It is not a party question at all. People are beginning to realise, in this matter of housing reform and slum clearance, that, in attempting to end a great wrong as this and previous Governments are doing, in some cases evils and injustices have resulted greater than those which arose under the previous slum conditions, and this matter of the owner-occupier is one of those cases. I could add many others to those that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Let the Committee consider for a moment the case mentioned by my Noble Friend, of an old couple over 70 who had lived all their lives in an old-fashioned town where, to quote the admirable phrase used by my Noble Friend, there is a sort of Elizabethan slum. These old people, who had been living in a house which they had always regarded as healthy, were suddenly told that their property was going to be seized and they were going to be turned out, receiving only a derisory value for it. How can anyone justify such a proceeding?
I would like to hear what justification the Minister can put forward. Is it that hard cases make bad law, or what is it? I would like to quote some figures of the actual compensation that the owner-occupier will get under the Bill as it stands, with the addition, which is said to be a concession, under this Clause. The Clause provides two alternative methods. According to the method of Sub-section (2, a), in the case of a whole block of houses in a certain town, the amount of compensation receivable will be £2 18s.; or, under the alternative method, of paragraph (b) £8 10s. I could quote a number of other cases in all of which the compensation is under £10. It would be better never to offer this compensation at all than to offer derisory amounts of that kind.
I do not want to be too critical of my right hon. Friend, but he has the curious
trait, which seems to affect many Ministers of Health, of not being in the least logical and consistent because of some alleged administrative difficulty. If compensation is to be offered, it ought to be real. If my right hon. Friend were to give way on this point there need be no question of pride, and not a Member on this side of the House will attack him for doing so. I have no right to quote private conversations, but I happen to have personal friends in the party opposite, who in private conversation have told me that they do not agree with this Clause. I know they realise that hardship has occurred to owner-occupiers in this respect, and, although they and I differ widely on other matters, we agree on this. There is no question of loss of prestige. My Noble Friend and I feel so strongly on this matter that we shall never rest content until we see it altered. We shall continue it in the constituencies and by every method open to us, and we believe that eventually, if this Government will not do it, some Government will close what is a very serious gap in our whole social system.

8.20 p.m.

Major MILNER: As the principle of compensation in the Bill as it now appears has been decided, I am bound to say that I do not think there is any class of the property-owning community which has the same claim to compensation as the small man owning and occupying his house, and, that being so, I hope that my hon. Friends will not put any obstacle in the way of this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit to accept it. I refer to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman); I should take a different view on the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). If compensation is to be given at all—as to which, as the 'Committee know, we have strong views in certain directions—this particular class are entitled to such compensation.
It is all very well for the House of Commons to pass laws whereby local authorities have to pay compensation, whether on a small or a large scale, to one class of the community or another. I know from my experience in Leeds that it is very often said that the Labour party spend a great deal of money in slum clearance and so on, and in doing
so put a great burden on the rates. This particular proposal will undoubtedly, in its present form, put a burden on the rates, and in my submission it is a burden which the National Government either ought to bear altogether or ought to help the local authorities to bear. I do not know whether the Government are proposing to accept this Amendment or not, or whether they propose to accept any responsibility for the cost, but the Amendment will very much affect the City of Leeds, which has a very large slum clearance scheme in progress, and I am glad to see that all the Members representing Leeds are now present. I hope that advantage will not be taken of what I have said, or of what the Government may decide, to make the complaint that that or any other slum clearance scheme is putting an unduly large burden upon the ratepayers. If compensation is to be granted, it should be granted in this case, but it is also a case where, in my submission, the Government ought to bear some portion of the responsibility.

8.24 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: My first impression, after listening to the Debate, is that the Committee will certainly not regret the discretion which it exercised earlier in the day and which enabled the Debate to take place because there can be no doubt that for the first time on this Bill a matter has been ventilated in the House which well deserved ventilation, and I gladly take the opportunity of meeting the arguments which have been advanced. If I am unable to accept these Amendments, it is not from any disregard of, or failure to realise, the force of the contentions which have been put forward with so much eloquence by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mrs. Copeland), my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and other Members. The line of consideration which I would venture to ask the Committee to follow with me is to recognise that these considerations relating to the position of the owner-occupier have been present to the minds of myself and the Government in framing the provisions of the Bill, and the provisions are calculated to meet the case put to me by my hon. Friends to the degree to which it is right and proper that they should be met. I
only differ from my hon. Friends on the question of degree, because, as I believe I shall be able to satisfy the Committee, the proposals which they make go further than would be justifiable in the direction of meeting the case of the owner-occupier.
I need not re-assert to the Committee how deeply the situation of the owner-occupier has been brought to my mind, and how fully I am conscious of the difference between his circumstances and those of the bad slum landlord. Pathetic personal cases have been brought to my attention, and some of them are as tragic as cases can be. The most tragic case put to me concerns that unfortunate state of affairs when one with little knowledge and experience makes a bad investment, and buys something not worth the money he has paid for it. But alas! the State cannot always protect the subject against that disaster.

Mr. V. ADAMS: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps it would be better if I follow out the line I desire to take. I agree that in substance the owner-occupier deserves special consideration, but, if you try to arrive at the measure of the consideration which he should receive, you are driven to the conclusion that you must not form the class of owner-occupiers for the purpose, but you must form the class in the way in which it has been formed in the Bill, in Clause 61, namely, those who have done their best to keep up the condition of their houses. From the arguments of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings and the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), it seems that they would seek to have us compensate the owner-occupier in respect of his rights and the point of view of his interests apart from the value of the property with which we are concerned. We must get the fact very clearly in our minds, that we are concerned with a particular transaction, the acquisition of a building by the local authority. The measure of the compensation must be related to the value of the building. If we once lose sight of that fact, we are completely at large. We must constantly bear in mind that we have the other side of the account, that the compensation will ultimately have to be paid by the friends and neighbours, fellow ratepayers and taxpayers, of the
owner-occupier, and that the money does not come from nowhere. You must not lose sight of the principle that the value of the property which is being transferred is the measure of the compensation.
That is the line we have followed in the Bill. We have defined the Clause in the interests of those who have made an effort to keep their property well maintained. That was agreed by the Mover of the first Amendment. Then we look and see what is the right and proper special allowance to be made in respect of the value which has been transferred. We take the amount of the aggregate expenditure for the five years. That is the measure of the maintenance of the house. We say that that has to be the special compensation for this class. My Noble Friend, taking that basis of calculation, quoted a very low figure. That is true. It was in view of that fact that we put in paragraph (b) which provides an arbitrary sum, which has been very carefully calculated to be the equivalent, under practical conditions, of that provided for by the words in paragraph (a). We have there arrived, after a prolonged inquiry on a statistical basis into the conditions and value of the properties concerned, at a special measure of compensation, granted for the first time in this Bill, to meet the cases of hardship which have been put to me with so much force and eloquence.

Earl WINTERTON: The amount of this compensation will only be a few pounds. I hope that I am wrong, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that he must relate the compensation to the value? Surely he does not suggest that the value of these houses in open market would not be very much greater.

Mr. HOROBIN: The rateable value surely, is the annual value at which the property is worth to be let, and the right hon. Gentleman is taking it as a measure of the capital value of the house, and really multiplying it by one and a half times. How can it possibly be so?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham is that the sums to which he has referred cannot be the sort of sums received, because he will perceive that the person in question can apply for payment under (a) or (b) whichever sum is the greater,
and that one and a half times the rateable value of the house is undoubtedly greater than the sums to which he has referred. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin), there is, I think, a misapprehension in his point. It is not a case of applying an annual sum to a capital value. It is a case of arriving at a measure of compensation substantially provided in paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) is the measure of compensation, and paragraph (b) is only a practical method of arriving at a sum, which will be approximate, to meet the position, and which, according to my basis of calculation, in most cases will be greater. That is the point. Admitting the case for special compensation in the class referred to and seeing that our sympathy is with the hardships and difficulties of that class, we have to see what firm basis we can reach in order to do justice between this class and other ratepayers. We must carefully valuate in Clause 61, and we must stop to see that, when we have done justice, we do not go further and do injustice to those who eventually have to find the money. I do not think that I can find any contention in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds to justify an arbitrary application of paragraph (a) which would be in accordance with our sense of fairness.
The proposed new Clause of my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) appears to be less acceptable, because it departs altogether from the basis of the value of that being absolutely transferred, and relates the value to something which has no logical or practical relationship with that with which we are concerned. I submit that the transfer under Clause 61 is both sounder and more likely to meet this sort of case. As regards the ante-dating of the provision, I am afraid that we are in conflict with the practical possibilities of the case. When you are making a change in a course of administration which is in actual progress, there must always be difficulty as to the date to which you are to relate it. I have related the date of the change on which the additional compensation will be paid to the earliest possible date that was practically possible for me, that is from December when the principle was first decided upon and from which date records can be kept. To go so far back as the Noble Lord would go would be
to ask me to go into a period in regard to which there is no record for administrative purposes. I hope that what I have said will enable the Committee to follow me through rather a close and difficult region of the relationship of the practical possibility of the case to the social need. The Committee will, I hope, appreciate that in the provisions laid down in the Bill we have gone as far, not adventurously but rather as boldly, as we could go in a practical world to meet a case which calls for warm sympathy and deserves special consideration. I do not believe that it is possible to find a better provision than that which is contained in the Bill.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I should like to say a few words on the question of rateable value. There is some confusion in the minds of people outside the House, if not inside, on the difference between the market value and the rateable value of a house. It helps to make the point clear if we can quote an actual instance that has occurred where a demolition order has been made under a clearance scheme. I will quote the case of a property in good repair that was let at 8s. a week. The rateable value was £10 a year. It may appear at once to hon. Members that that has nothing to do with the market value of the property at that time, and that would be so, had the property not been condemned. In considering a house of that calibre under the provisions of Clause 61 (2, b) it is obvious that the payment to be made under the Bill as set out in that subsection, would be no more than £15. In the instance I am quoting there had been expended on the property £5 a year, on an average, in repairs. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that the loss to the owner of that property under the Bill would be £10, because the maximum allowed to be paid is £15. On figures like those it is obvious that the calculation on the basis of one and a half times the rateable value as compensation is by no means over-generous to the owner of such property. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) for the doubling of the allowance.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: Those who have moved and who are supporting the Amendment are to a certain extent proving their inconsistency, because the more they prove the gross insufficiency of the compensation the more difficult it becomes for me to see why we should confine it solely to one class of owner. There are many exceedingly poor people who are having great difficulty as the owners of one house in which all their savings have been invested. These people are going to be ruined if they do not get sufficient compensation. If we can only get compensation for some it is worth doing. The speech of my right hon. Friend deserves a little comment, especially the fact that he left the House immediately after making it. What is it that we are doing? We are taking compulsorily away from people some of their property and saying to them that the maximum that they can get in payment for it is one and a half times the rateable value.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: It is worn-out property, unfit for human habitation.

Mr. HOROBIN: If the hon. Member cannot see the point that I am making perhaps he will have an opportunity of speaking later. The fact is that these people are living in certain property. They have to live somewhere. They are living in property that they own and they pay no rent. The maximum compensation that they can get is one and a half times the annual value. Rateable value was never intended to have any relation to the capital value of property. The whole legal basis of the rateable value is that it is the value at which the property can be let for a year. The rateable value as we allknow—I am speaking of England and Wales and not of Scotland, where I believe it is different—is, broadly speaking, in practice less than the gross rent at which the house could be let. We all know perfectly well that a house equivalent to what the man may be living in at the moment could not be got at a gross weekly rent equivalent to his annual rateable value. We all know that. Then why not act upon it?
The fact is, that we are saying to these unfortunate people: "Go out of your present house in which you are living rent free and we will give you as a
maximum compensation one and a half times your rateable value, and after you have exhausted that you must presumably either die or pay rent to somebody." Here are people who own property which presumably will last their lifetime, however bad it is, and they are living there without paying anybody anything for rent, and you are saying to them: "We will give you as a maximum one and a half year's compensation based on your annual rateable value. After that, if you are not dead, you will have to pay the local authority 10s. or 11s. a week for a council house." What is the use of the Minister of Health saying that this arrangement is the result of complicated calculations and that Clause 61 (b) is exactly equal to Clause 61 (a)? These poor wretches are not interested in Clause 61 (a) or 61 (b). They want to know where they are to live when they are turned out of their house and how they are to get the money to pay for it. I admit that their houses may be worn out and that they are rotten but at least they have four walls and provide a roof for their heads. If we turn them out of their house and we say that we are only going to give them the equivalent of their annual value for one and a half years, where will they go? The gas oven will be the only four walls for them. It is an impossible proposition. It is grossly unfair. If we can only get more adequate compensation for the owner-occupier, well and good. I do not think that the case put by the Minister of Health will convince any fair-minded person that this is a fair basis of compensation. If the matter goes to a Division I for one shall vote for the Amendment, and I hope that other hon. Members will do the same.

8.44 p.m.

Colonel CHAPMAN: I think the Committee was amazed at the reasons given by the Minister for refusing to grant this modest request. He said that it would be unfair that this extra cost should be borne by their fellow citizens. What is happening to-day to the poor owner-occupiers? Many of them have had to go to the public assistance committee. Would it be a greater charge on the locality to give some small degree of extra compensation such as is suggested by the Amendment or to provide them with 5s. a week for life by forcing them on to the public assistance committee? I much prefer the new Clause
of the Noble Lord. Whether these houses are worn out or not they have been the habitation of these people for years, and they could have continued to live in them but for the fact that they are surrounded by houses which are worse than their own, which are let at unreasonable rents by slum landlords. I think that we should put in the date suggested by the Noble Lord. There are some localities which have started slum clearance early and some people who have lost their houses will get no compensation unless the date is put back. In the case where the husband has died leaving the house to the wife, and where estate duty has been assessed, that sum will still be outstanding if the area is declared a slum area while there will be no compensation for the widow. I think it is unreasonable if the Government do not grant the modest request put forward.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I support the Amendment, because I feel that this is a matter which should be conceded by the Government. It will not mean any hardship, or at least no material hardship, but may have some little effect in producing a more satisfactory rate of compensation for those who are turned out of their homes. It is not an easy matter for an owner-occupier to face up to a position where £10 or £12 is being paid to him after he has occupied his house for many years. It is wrong to take the rateable value as a basis for the purposes of assessment. You have the valuation of a house and deduct one-fifth to get at the rateable value, and then it is proposed to offer the person who has been occupying his house one-and-a-half times the amount of that value. In my view, it is ludicrous to give such small compensation to a person who is being turned out. No one, I am sure, can give any substantial reasons why such a person should not get decent consideration. These persons should be protected and not left to the mercy of public assistance committees, who eventually have to look to the ratepayers to provide the assistance which should normally be given not as a grant by way of relief but as a right to the person dispossessed.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the point and come to the conclusion that there is nothing unreasonable in this request. It is entirely wrong that a local authority should take advantage
of a poor individual who is occupying a house which he has not neglected. In the first instance, the owner-occupier who is being dispossessed is a person who has maintained his house in a decent condition, it is not his fault that he is being turned out, it is his misfortune; and when he purchased the house the chances are that in 99 cases out of 100 he did not purchase at a figure which contemplated his having to get away from the house on demolition. It would be unfair to leave the matter as it stands, and fairer, although not conceding all that is due to the owner-occupier, if the Amendment was carried.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: This is an extremely difficult matter. I do not know anything which has given rise to more indignation in local areas than this question of the owner-occupier in slum clearance schemes, and the way in which the Act has worked up to now. The number of these cases is not very great. There are not hundreds and thousands of them, the number is comparatively small, but when they occur they seem to be thrown into the limelight and everyone in the district knows the circumstances. In the main they are people who have saved a few pounds in order to buy their own house. It may not be all that is desirable, but that is because their savings have been limited, but they have endeavoured to get a little home together for their old age. If neither of these Amendments can be accepted, I hope the Government will look into this matter again and see whether it is not possible to do something better for these people than give them one and a half times the rateable value. In my constituency the rateable value of property of this description is about a £8 year, and one-and-a-half times that is £12. With all due respect it is an absolute insult to offer this to these people.
The Minister said that he thought justice was being done. I cannot agree with him. If justice is to be done to these owner-occupiers some method must be found which will not involve a charge upon local rates. Local authorities have always to keep an eye on local expenditure. A rate of one penny in the £ in my constituency brings in about £400 and, therefore, they could not afford to spend money in giving the compensation,
which in my opinion these people are entitled to receive. We must have help from the Exchequer. That is only reasonable. I cannot agree that the injustice has been removed by the Government's proposal, nor would it be relieved by putting the responsibility on the local authority. The responsibility ought to be on the national Exchequer.
A man in these circumstances does a great deal of patching up to keep his house in decent repair, and does it with his own labour. Invariably my experience has been that this class of owner-occupier—I am talking particularly about the poorer class of owner-occupier—tries to keep his house in as good a state of repair as possible. It is his, and he takes a pride in it. It may be that it is necessary, in the interests of the community, that a particular place should be included in a slum clearance scheme, and if the principle of compensation is to be recognised at all I want to emphasise the point that it should be real compensation. I agree with the hon. Member who said that this is not a party question but is a question in which all of us should try to find some solution. I do not think that the proper solution is that suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in his new Clause, nor do I think that the proper solution is that of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). I hope that if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment he will realise that there is sufficient feeling among Members of all parties to justify their saying to him that it should not be beyond the intelligence of the Department to work out some scheme which will give justice to the people concerned.

8.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I was not able to be in my place when the Minister replied to this Amendment, but I understand that, although he did not see fit to accept it, the Parliamentary Secretary and the learned Solicitor-General are still hereto take note of all the representations that may still be made in order to induce the Government at a later stage to change their minds. When the Clauses dealing with compensation were being discussed in Committee the amount of compensation to be paid for the well maintained house was gone into
well. I do not think that any Member of the Standing Committee would seriously attempt to challenge the scales that are to be paid to what might be called the owner of house property, the man who owns such property for the purpose of deriving some income from it, whether it is one house or more is immaterial. But he is not the occupier. He is presumably a man who has chosen to put his capital into that class of property and to derive an income from it instead of putting his capital elsewhere. I think the compensation basis for that class of man is quite fair.
But this House and the country have now recognised the principle that where the State takes away a part of a man's property for State use by way of Income Tax there shall be a graduated scale of tax. It takes a much larger proportion of the income of a man who has £10,000 a year than it does of the income of a man who has only £500 a year. Similarly a very good case can be made out that where a man is the owner-occupier of a house the scale of compensation ought to be graduated and he ought to have far less taken from him than the man who owns several houses and is not the occupier of any of them. The two classes of owners are quite separate and ought to be dealt with in a separate way. The owner-occupier of a house does not live in that, house because he wants to make money out of it. He lives in it because he is determined to avoid paying rent to someone else. If in the onslaught on the slums—slum clearance schemes must go ahead at any cost—you sweep that man away and drive him to the public assistance authority, you simply create a fresh problem and make it much more difficult not only for the local authority but for the whole country to finance adequately the new social problem that you create by this unfair and unjust treatment. If there is a division on this Amendment, although I am a keen supporter of the principle of this Bill I shall regretfully have to record my vote in favour of giving more adequate compensation in these cases.

9.2 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure that the House has been impressed very much by the tragic character of some of the cases put forward. We all have heard of them
from time to time. None the less we have to remember that the property under consideration is property that has been condemned, after inspection, as unfit for human habitation. That is where this proposal begins. I feel very shy of committing myself to the saddling of a rating authority with expenses in respect of property which has been condemned as unfit for human habitation.

Mr. PIKE: Not condemned by virtue of its being slum property.

Dr. ADDISON: The consideration that presents itself to my mind, if the Amendment were adopted, is that it would certainly limit the number of hard cases, because it would veto slum clearance in a large number of areas. I understand that the Clause as it stands is estimated to add an appreciable percentage to the cost of slum clearance in London. Figures have been given to me. How true they are I do not know, but they are very high figures and are supplied by officers of the London County Council. Is it to be suggested that the whole cost should be put on the rates? If the Government are going to give compensation for this class of hard case it is up to them to produce a considered scheme and to do it at national expense. I object to saddling slum clearance by local authorities with this cost in respect of property which has been condemned as unfit for human habitation. While I have sympathy with the people concerned, the proposal as it stands would be unjust to the ratepayers and would be unworkable in practice. We look to the Government to produce a well-considered set of proposals under which the State will bear the cost.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: The right hon. Gentleman's speech would lead one to believe that it is his idea that the property of the owner-occupier in these cases is, definitely, of a slum character in that it is unfit far human habitation. He must, surely, recall that there are such things as clearance orders.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me, and I do not wish to misrepresent anybody. I only said that the property to which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) refers is
property which has been called in question because it has been found to be unfit for human habitation.

HON. MEMBERS: Read on.

Dr. ADDISON: And where the Minister is satisfied he may give directions for a payment by the local authority. That is under Clause 61.

Mr. PIKE: Perhaps I can put the right hon. Gentleman right. The new Clause of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) uses the words:
as being unfit for human habitation or which is made the subject of a clearance order.
Because a property has been made the subject of a clearance order, that does not necessarily mean it is actually unfit for human habitation. Unquestionably, many of the grievances of which we have heard this afternoon arise from property becoming subject to clearance orders, although it, would be regarded by any health authority as fit for human habitation. The Minister himself said at the outset that he did not oppose these proposals because of any failure to recognise the force of the arguments put forward in their favour. I listened to the rest of his reply in vain for anything which gave one good reason to believe that he did realize the force of those arguments. The owner-occupier, it is to be remembered, is not necessarily a man who purchases property merely in order to avoid paying rent to somebody else. He may purchase it because he has regard to the future of his family. He may have a crippled son for whom he wishes to provide a home, or he may think that his wife in the event of his death would be more secure in a house of her own. Those men are in a different category from the house-owners mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew).
Personally, I do not think the Committee ought to consider whether the owner-occupier has made a good or bad investment in purchasing his house. I think that is beside the point. I purchased a house a few years ago and I did not know then what action the local authority was going to take in the matter of slum clearance or ordinary clearance orders for road widening purposes. I
could not foresee what their policy was likely to be and perhaps it was a very good thing, because if I had known I should probably have run many miles away sooner than live under their directions in the matter. But the vast majority of people concerned in these proposals are people who have purchased houses in which to settle down and who desire to eliminate the cares which hang round the neck of the average working man who is paying rent to a landlord. I am convinced that the compensation basis here is totally wrong. In the vast majority of industrial areas what does it represent? An owner-occupier who has been displaced will get a sum equal to about 30½ weeks' rent. The man who gets £15 or even £20 will probably have to dispose of all that money long before a year has passed in order to find alternative accommodation in the cheapest council houses that are available. That is not a sufficient reward for thrift and enterprise. It is indeed more likely to destroy those qualities of thrift and enterprise which make the good citizen, no matter what his working conditions may be.
I call the attention of the Minister once again to a specific case which I have mentioned previously. A man who is now to be displaced and who has now to find alternative accommodation, will receive under the compensation Clause of this Measure the wonderful sum of £17 10s. in the following circumstances. The man had lived in this property as a tenant for 10 years. Last May the property became available for purchase. It was a block of three houses which had been let to a brewery company for £125 a year. It included an off-licence and a little grocery store. When it came on the market this man put the whole of his life savings amounting to £1,175 into it and carried out necessary conversions in parts of the house in which he lived at a cost of £112. That is to say, only in May last he invested about £1,300 in this property. In December it was put into a clearance order and now it has to come down, not because it is slum property but because it is regarded as coming within the terms of the 1930 Act relating to "bad arrangement or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." In other words, the corporation have decided to widen the street, and no doubt there may be other property in
the surrounding area which is, by virtue of its condition, justifiably scheduled for clearance. But this property represents this man's livelihood. He has a wife and three children dependent upon him. He had built up a grocery business and news agency in addition to the off-licence. And now he is to get £17 10s. for his £1,300 invested less than a year ago. I submit that Englishmen cannot tolerate a proposal which does not take into consideration the ordinary rights of the citizen, to a greater extent than this Bill does at the moment. Whether or not these Amendments are accepted, I hope the Government will get busy without delay in order to see that these people get, at least, ordinary justice.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) quoted an individual case which was not very helpful to the point he wanted to make. What he has in fact proved to the Committee is that some unfortunate individual in Attercliffe paid a colossal sum for a piece of wretched property that apparently was not worth one-seventh of the money he paid for it. In any case, the sort of enterprise to which the hon. Member referred was very poor enterprise on the part of the man in question, or he could not have come such a cropper. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) suggested that the starting-point in all these schemes is that the property must have been, determined to be unfit for human habitation, the hon. Member and other hon. Members said, "Read on." If we read on we find the words, "or which is made the subject of a clearance order." Does the hon. Member imply that a clearance order is not dealing with property that has been recognised as being unfit for human habitation?

Mr. PIKE: Not necessarily.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member and many other hon. Members must, apparently, be living under a misapprehension of the Housing Act, 1930, or even of the terms of this Bill. If, for instance, a row of houses is declared within a clearance area, and one or two houses in the centre of the property are still fit for human habitation and cannot be regarded as slum property in the ordinary sense, a totally different compensation
from the compensation in this Bill will apply in those cases. Therefore, those hon. Members who echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Attercliff are entirely wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon clearly stated, the starting-point in a demolition scheme is when property is unfit for human habitation. If that be so, no one need shirk the natural sympathy that exists in all parts of the Committee towards any individual who may be disturbed, and who may have to occupy a house for which many shillings per week will have to be paid in rent. But is there an hon. Member who has not, sometime or other, somehow and by some means, had to suppress his personal desires for the benefit of the general community? Is it not the case that men are controlled at a thousand and one different points so that their wives and children may have a chance in life? None of us likes these restrictions, whether it applies to the demolition of wretched property or anything else, but society has been obliged to act in this way all down the ages.
What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is consistent with a desire to help to improve the health of the population through the housing conditions, and while we are not satisfied that this is the best possible Clause to deal with this problem, we are convinced that it would be intolerable, and would possibly hold up 75 per cent. of the demolition schemes if the compensation reached a point when it became more than the local ratepayers could afford to meet. Much as we sympathise with the individual, we are convinced that if the Government really want to compensate to a greater extent than the terms of the Bill specify, they ought to find the money from the Treasury, and not land the responsibility on the local authorities, for that would have the effect of holding up clearance schemes.

9.20 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I am really almost inclined to suggest that, as it is obvious that nothing that anyone says in this Committee can gain one flicker of interest from the Minister and that none of our arguments can appeal in any way to him, it is perhaps better that we should divide. I have heard many speeches made by Ministers which have offended their supporters. It is one of the necessary
duties of any Minister to offend his supporters very often and to go against their wishes. But I never heard a speech by a Minister which seemed so deliberately to ignore every feeling and every reasonable argument which has been urged upon him, and which seemed to be inspired by such a deliberate intention of hurting the feelings and of offending the reason of all his supporters as the speech of the Minister of Health. One of the first debates I heard in Parliament was the Budget debate in the House of Lords in 1909. I remember Lord Lucas on that occasion attacking Lord Revelstoke's speech as representing the dehumanised view of these problems prevalent in the City of London. I thought that absurd then. I now understand exactly what a dehumanised view of a social problem is.
The Minister's argument is this: The owner-occupier is indeed in a very unhappy position, but it is, after all, the position into which many poor people get who make a bad investment. Thus the Government or the local authority is to go to a man to take away what belongs to him, and what he is not using for sale or commerce with others; they are to take from him what he owns and say, "My poor fellow, we can only pay you ten bob for what you thought was worth £50, but then, you see, you have been unfortunate; you have made a bad investment." Did ever Dickens put into the mouth of Mr. Pecksniff a more appalling sentiment? Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say, "These Amendments are impossible because you must base yourself on the value of the property." The value to whom? The value in the open market of a property which was never intended to go into the open market? Is that the great principle to which we have to cling? It does not make sense, like all de-humanised, economic propositions. Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of compensation for disturbance?
The right hon. Gentleman says pontifically that the only basis of compensation in this housing clearance system must be the value of the property actually transferred to the local authority, judged as value in the open market without any consideration of the value of the house to the man himself, who never intended it to come into the open market, without any sort of compensation for dis-
turbance, or for the fact that the man is being turned out on the world penniless, and will have to pay a rent which he never had to pay because he was the owner of the house. All these things are to be ignored. The right hon. Gentleman does not bring forward any argument for ignoring them except the pontifical statement, "Of course, my hon. friends will all agree that the only possible basis for compensation must be the value of the property transferred." We do not agree. There is no sense in that proposition.
Even taking the Minister on his own statement, what is the value of this property? What has it been taxed upon? It has been taxed upon an annual value, the rateable value mentioned in the Clause. The local authority has taxed the man for all these months and years and decades, while the value of the property was precisely the same as it is at the present moment, and its state of repair was precisely the same. Then the local authority turns round and says, "That, of course, was the value for the purpose of taxation, but its value for the purpose of paying you compensation is one and a half times the annual value, That is perhaps three, four or five times the annual taxation which we have levied on you on an estimated capital value, which we now say we do not intend to pay you at all." The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Southwark said that this was one and a-half years of life. It is not even that. A man is not going to get into any house that the local authority puts him in for an annual rent of one and a-half times its annual value.
This is the logical case built up by the Minister, and he says that after careful actuarial calculation he has discovered that one and a-half times the annual value, on which the man has been taxed up to 14s. in the £, exactly represents what he deserve to have. How can that be true? "Deserves" in whose opinion? In the opinion of the local authority; but surely not the local authority who taxed him on this basis? There is nothing in the arguments the Minister has brought forward, except the facade determination not to have anything to do with any proposal which might land him in for a little more money in compensation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) is so anxious arguing
whether the local authority or the State should pay what is just that he is going to vote against this Amendment, against fair compensation, until he is quite sure he has not to pay. [Interruption.] I do not want to be controversial with anyone except the Minister, who I regard as having thrown down a challenge to all his supporters in this House, and with whom there can be nothing but controversy on this subject from his supporters here, and, I believe, from his supporters in the country. I do not want to argue controversially with hon. Members opposite. They agree with the attitude we are taking up, although they feel, of course, that because, owing to the Rules of Procedure, this has to be thrown on the rates for the purpose of the Amendment, they feel nervous About who is to pay. I have heard from the Front Opposition Bench arguments in connection with a problem of humanity, and of ordinary justice quite apart from humanity—we are not talking about sentiment; we are talking about mere, reasonable justice—I have heard arguments from the Front Bench that frankly made me sick. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Opposition Front Bench?"] This side. I have been a loyal supporter of this Government, but I shall have great pleasure in going into the Lobby and voting against them on this occasion.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST YOUNG: In spite of the wonderful oration of the Noble Lord opposite, I refuse to agree with him when he says it is almost impossible to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give way on this matter. One remembers that when this Bill was last on the Floor of the House the Minister refused to acknowledge the principle of compensation at all, and I believe in the Debate that took place a few months ago I was the only speaker who stood up for the principle of compensation for these people dispossessed of their homes. The Minister has had to stand up to a multitude of facts of which he was not cognisant before this Debate started, and it seems even now that the main principles of justice have not been touched upon.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) pointed out that if the late tenant took his compensation, he would probably have enough to pay his rent in a council house for 21 weeks. He would have
nothing of the kind. The average rateable value of property of this kind throughout the country—and I have had some years' experience in connection with these matters—is from £6 to £7, and if they get compensation—there is no guarantee that they will, as the Bill says the inspector may recommend to the local authorities that payment shall begranted—but even if they do get that compensation of £9 or £10, the cost of demolishing and clearing a cottage is £10 at the very lowest. They are going out without one penny net compensation. They will have no site value to take with them. The local authority is not compelled to pay them anything for the site, and in most cases the people who have a claim for compensation are told that at present the local authorities do not intend to develop the site. The owner thus loses his site. He is not getting one penny net for the property. He has to move into another house and pay rent for it, and possibly leaves behind a fairly heavy mortgage on the house which has been destroyed. I cannot see any justice in that. To give one and a half years' annual value really means nothing at all. In some cases, it will still leave the late owner of the house with a large debt upon his shoulders. There have been cases in which the owner has not been able to demolish the house, because he has not had the money to do so, and the local authority have demolished it, sold the rubble for what it would fetch and sued him in the county court for the balance of the cost.
I am glad the Minister has given way on the principle, and I wish he would be generous and decide that these people who lose their property shall be paid at least three times the annual value, and be given also site value for the land, which is no longer theirs, and which has not depreciated in value but has appreciated in value. I hope those who have expressed the determination to oppose the Government and support the Amendment unless some further concession is made will not alter their minds and turn tail when the division bells ring. This is a most important principle. It is elemental justice that people who have been turned out of their houses, even if they did make an unfortunate investment, which perhaps they could not help making in the days after the War, when there were no houses to let, should now
be treated fairly. I hope the Minister will make some further concession to these people, who cannot afford the cost of an appeal, and look to this House to do them elemental justice.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I should like to point out that a great many owner-occupiers are among the best citizens in this country and that as a class they ought to be encouraged. If they are to be treated in the way proposed it will be no encouragement to people to acquire their own houses. A good many Members have spoken about people who have put all their savings into a house and lost them. It is not always the case that they have put their savings into the house and lost them. Very often they have put some of their savings into the house, but they may also have purchased it through a building society on mortgage. The derisory compensation to be paid them will hardly be enough to cover the expenses of removing into another house, should they be so fortunate as to get another house, and it is idle to contend that it will be anything like enough to pay off the balance of the mortgage in many cases. So they are not only going to find themselves deprived of all their savings, small as they may be, but going to find themselves without a house, without any money and being pressed to repay the balance of the mortgage when they have no money at all. In view of the speeches made this evening, in which no one has followed the Minister in his arguments, at which I am not surprised, I hope that even at this last moment the Minister will give way and give us some encouragement that this particularly deserving and particularly valuable section of the community, who are the most law-abiding citizens, most respectable people, who make the least claim on the Government, shall receive at the hands of a National Government, if it be a National Government, some sympathetic consideration.

9.41 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: Before we go to a Division, I want to say this: I deeply regret that the Leader of the House and of the Conservative party is not present to realise the effect that the vote—because, of course, the Government will be supported by an enormous majority from
the smoking rooms and from the dining rooms—is going to have in dozens of constituencies in this country.

9.42 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: This matter of the smooth progress of the slum clearance schemes lies too near to my heart for me not to desire that the work should be carried out without injustice to anybody. We are perfectly convinced that this great movement must be continued, and it can only be continued if at no stage is there the least shadow of injustice to private individuals. To-night we have heard put with great eloquence and great force considerations which have been present to my mind in regard to the position of the small owner-occupier, and I would like to put before the Committee the considerations which have led us in Clause 61 to decide upon the manner and the measure of additional compensation. In listening to this Debate with very close attention I have felt that this House, as the grand council of the nation, does reflect the sense of justice of the heart of the nation, and it has seemed to me that there is a real sense of apprehension lest the provisions which we have made should not be adequate to cover the measure of compensation which is due.
But let me try to avoid any shadow of misconception on this point, because that is important when we are trying to get an approximation of views. I believe that the basis of compensation we have selected in this Bill is right. On the other hand, from listening to the speeches, I see that there is a doubt in the minds of hon. Members, which I share, lest the measure of compensation we have decided upon should prove inadequate. What I propose is that hon. Members should give me an opportunity of reconsidering the measure of compensation which is provided under this Bill. I believe that would meet the general sense of this council of the nation as expressed here to-night. One word upon the actual machinery. The Committee will see that paragraph (2, b) is really the key of the matter. The small owner-occupier can get whichever is greater (2, a) or (2, b). What I ask the Committee to allow me to reconsider is the measure of compensation which he can get under (b), which he can always take in preference to (a) if he chooses.
What I propose to consider is the introduction of such a method under paragraph (b) as will give that more generous measure of compensation to the small owner which will meet the cases which have been put to me. If the Committee will provide me with an opportunity of considering such an increase under (b) as will cover the arguments addressed to me, I give the Committee an undertaking to give the matter that consideration, and to introduce a suitable emendation at the proper time and at the proper stage.

9.45 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: The suggestion of the Minister appears, as far as one understands it, to open the door to a general scheme of compensation which will be wider than it is now. I suggest to the Minister that he ought not to be generous at somebody else's expense, and that the cost of providing for these people must be met through the Exchequer and not through the rates. If the additional burden is to be put on the local ratepayers, the scheme ought to be opposed. I want to make that representation to the Minister, because it is very easy to be generous with somebody else's money. [interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member is satisfied with the demonstration which he has evoked at my expense, and is no doubt very pleased with himself at his somewhat inane ejaculation. He was evidently referring to the housing scheme for which I was responsible. I am not going into that now. [Laughter.] I can only tell those who make those ignorant jeers that they do not know the story. I should be only too glad of the chance to tell it to them. In the case of the housing scheme to which I have referred, the money was national money, found from the Exchequer, and that is the very source which the right hon. Gentleman should employ in this case. If the Minister intends to provide additional compensation, it should be done by way of Exchequer contributions, and not at the cost of the local ratepayers. So far as our small party are concerned, this will meet with our continued opposition unless the Minister decides to meet the full compensation by way of Exchequer grants.

9.48 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds
(Mr. Denman) speaks in answer to the Minister, perhaps the Committee will allow me to thank the Minister for what he has said. At the same time I would like to express my regret if anything I said appeared to be intended to apply to him personally. I know that that was the effect of the language which I held. I would only ask him to remember that sometimes one forgets that the representative of a great department with which one is quarrelling is an individual for whom one has the utmost respect and affection. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my apologies for anything which I have said, and my thanks for the way in which he has acted.

9.50 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I want to express my admiration for the right hon. Gentleman in the way he guided the Bill through Committee, but I must confess to disappointment at the gyrations and the rapid interchanges which have taken place today. The right hon. Gentleman started, at an early stage this afternoon, with great firmness and determination to resist the extension of the reasons for recommittal. In exactly the same way, at about 5 o'clock this evening, he started by firmly resisting the speeches of the Noble Lord. After a couple of hours of oratory he has entirely changed his attitude. It rather looks as though the only way to get concessions from the right hon. Gentleman is to be uncivil, personally abusive and extremely offensive. The speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends and supporters have been most critical. The right hon. Gentleman said quite firmly at the beginning of his speech that he did not mean to make a concession. Then apparently—I say "apparently"—he completely climbed down. I use the word "apparently" because we do not know, and the Committee have not been taken into the right hon. Gentleman's confidence, nor have the Noble Lords who have been pressing him so hard, what form the concessions are to take.
Everybody has admitted that there are hard cases among persons who are interested in the results of slum clearance, but it is well to remember that no houses are confiscated except they be unfit for human habitation, and that, secondly,
the argument that both Amendments propose to put the whole cost of the compensation upon local authority has not been met. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) is right in pointing out that if the burden is made too heavy on local authorities, the tendency will be to hold up slum clearance. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to the Committee, to the local authorities, to the persons most concerned, and also to those who want slums cleared, to make clear what will be the effect of the rather vague concession at which he has hinted in order to conciliate opposition at this critical moment, and whether the money is to be found out of the taxes or out of the rates.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE STRAUSS: I would point out to the Committee that the case made out by the Mover and supporters of the Amendment was that you could and should distinguish between the owner-occupier and other owners of condemned property. Every speech has been made on that basis, and very few hon. Members have argued about general compensation. That aspect of the matter has not been put before the Committee. The case that the owner-occupier had a special claim to compensation was very eloquently stated by the Mover of the Amendment. The extraordinary thing is that the Minister should say, not that he intends to meet that special claim, but that he is going to increase compensation for everyowner—or that he may increase it. He is to consider increasing the compensation to every owner of condemned property who has kept the property in fair repair. Even more amazing than that is the fact that the supporters of the Amendment appear to be entirely satisfied with that situation. That makes it appear that their anxiety was really not for the owner-occupier who, I admit—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better wait until the Government make their new suggestion before we attempt to discuss it.

Mr. T. SMITH: On a point of Order. Would it not facilitate progress and prevent unnecessary discussion if we knew
exactly what the Minister intends to do and how he intends to amend this Clause?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss an Amendment which is not before the Committee.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think I can save the time of the Committee by pointing out that there is still a Report stage on this Clause, and we must give an opportunity to the House to reconsider the matter after a conclusion has been arrived at by the Committee.

Mr. STRAUSS: The Minister has indicated that on the Report stage he is going to reconsider Sub-section (2, b), which gives to the owner of property that has been condemned for human habitation, but which has been well maintained, one and a-half times the rateable value of the house. He says he is going to reconsider thatpayment—in an upward direction, of course—and all I am pointing out is that the Minister, as he has announced, is going to make a general concession to all owners.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is in order for an hon. Member to ask the Minister a question as to whether he is going to make a general concession, but the hon. Member would not be in order in going into the question of what the details may be until the Amendment is before the Committee.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Minister of Health says he is going to bring the matter up on the Report stage. In view of the discussion which took place earlier in the afternoon, would an Amendment of that character he in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Sir H. SAMUEL: May I suggest that it is also a matter for the Minister? If he has told the House that he deprecates discussion now, and if his undertaking means that he will be prepared to reconsider the question on the Report stage, how can it be in order then?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is not for me to decide a point of Order. What I do is to give an undertaking as regards paragraph (b) that I will take into consideration this question and arrange for such
an increase in the measure of compensation under the Clause to meet the case put to me by my hon. Friends.

Dr. ADDISON: May I suggest, in order that we may understand the position, that it is necessary or desirable that the Minister should state whether the proposed Amendment we are to consider will be limited to the owner-occupier class affected by this Clause or to those generally affected by the Clause, because the case which we have been arguing for the past two hours is that of the owner-occupier.

Mr. JANNER: May I ask you, Captain Bourne, whether it is in order for the Minister to say that he will take this matter into consideration at a later stage if the argument hitherto indicates that this is the last occasion on which the question of finance relating to rates can be dealt with? If my contention on that point is correct, may we have your view, or the Minister's view through you, as to how he is going to cope with that difficulty?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not my office to point out how the Minister may carry out an undertaking.

Mr. STRAUSS: When the Minister, under cover of dealing with a special case, proposes, as far as one can gather, to give increased compensation to every case that exists throughout the country, and when all this compensation will come out of rates and not out of taxation, it does not appear to me that he has met those who support the Amendment. The compensation will be a hundred times greater than if the only cases to receive compensation were those of owner-occupiers. I am certain that local authorities throughout the country will strongly oppose indication which the. Minister has given that he proposes to make a general increase of the compensation already to be paid to owners of slum property.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There are two reasons why I wish to take part in the Debate. I happen to be a Member of the Committee who proposed to amend paragraph (5). Though I have no vested interest in property, I have a vested interest in the Amendment. I rejoice at the Minister proposing to do as he has indicated. The
idea that this is going to hinder slum clearance is a great delusion. There is no reason why it should be a hindrance because town councils are not going to take the responsibility of robbing people. It is no good for the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) to shake his head. The London County Council has too many crimes on its head on this score. The Minister has told us he is going to do something. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has said that that is no good, and another place, as far as I know, cannot do it. Therefore we have to be quite sure where we are. I am not trying to take any advantage of the Minister. I do not remember any Minister in charge of a Bill upstairs conducting the business with greater courtesy and ability, and I am not seeking to add to his difficulties. I think his handling of the Bill upstairs is entitled to every praise. On three occasion she was, unfortunately, absent through illness. His handling of the business was able, sympathetic and considerate, but he, as a wise man, having regard to the strong views expressed, is properly anxious to meet a case of substance.
We are in difficulties as to the procedure of this House. We have learned a great deal to-day. [Interruption.] Yes, and most hon. Members opposite did not know what the rules were until that discussion. I know I did not, and I know they did not. I am very anxious that we should not get into such circumstances that the Minister is debarred by the Rules of this House from doing what he wishes. My sole object is to facilitate his doing what he wishes. My point is that a Motion to recommit can be taken at any stage in the Bill, and when we reach the Amendments on Clause 61 it will then be competent for the Minister to move to recommit the Bill in respect of that Clause. If that be the case, our difficulties are at an end. As to the method which the Minister can take to give effect to the promise given to-night, when he gave it he was not thinking of House of Commons procedure; he was thinking of the Bill, and it is only as a result of the discussion that some of us have become concerned as to whether it is possible for him to do what, in principle, he desires to do, and I wonder, Captain Bourne, whether I am going beyond what I might reasonably ask. Mr.
Speaker would then be in the Chair. Nevertheless, I respect your very great knowledge of procedure, and I wonder whether you would think that it was going beyond the bounds of what was proper to indicate whether it is possible under our procedure to have a second recommittal of a Bill during the Report stage, because if your answer is that that is possible what is worrying many of us will be at an end.

10.6 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member addresses a question to me. There are many precedents for recommittals of Bills either before or after the Report stage or before the commencement of the Third Reading. What attitude Mr. Speaker may take about it is not for me to say.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Would it be possible for the Minister on the Report stage to increase the financial charge, the public charge, on the Bill under the present Money Resolution, the thing not having been agreed to on Committee stage?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I am seized with the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, what might happen on the Report stage he will quite appreciate is not a matter on which I can answer. It is a matter for Mr. Speaker. As far as the Committee stage is concerned, we are bound by the Resolution whether the Bill is committed for the first time or recommitted subsequently, and whether any given Amendment might or might not come within the terms of that Resolution is obviously a matter on which I can express no opinion until I have had an opportunity of considering both the Resolution and the terms of the Amendment.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, which I moved earlier in the evening, I should like to thank Members in all parts of the House for the support given to it. It has made it perfectly clear to the Minister that there is an extremely strong feeling in all quarters of the House that the occupier-owner deserves special treatment, and I am very happy to leave it in the Minister's hands to produce a solution.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order that the Minister may inform the Committee as to whether or not he would not save time by reporting Progress at this moment, so that be can make up his mind by to-morrow what should be the new proposal which he thinks he ought to make to the Committee. That would save the trouble of a further recommittal and perhaps many hours of debate on some subsequent day. At least in the Minister's own interest, if he really wants to make progress with his Bill, he would do well to sacrifice 50 minutes of time, for in the process he may save many hours. To-morrow morning he could come along with his financial proposal, which could be embodied in the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in all humility whether he does not think that it would serve his purpose and the purpose of his recalcitrant supporters, who have abused him so much during the evening, if he tried to make up his mind between now and to-morrow what he intends to do rather than continue the debate now.

10.10 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I hope that I shall always be prepared to meet the general convenience of the House on such a question, but I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman's Motion is necessary.

Mr. C. BROWN: Why?

Sir H. YOUNG: The discussion on the previous Amendment, which will undoubtedly require further consideration, can have no possible effect on the discussion of the very interesting business which now awaits the House.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Would it not be possible, instead of proceeding with the Motion before the House, to postpone the further consideration of Clause 61?

10.11 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I should like to ask the Minister to give us some definite information. After all, all of us who live in areas where there are slum properties are very anxious about this thing and the discussion that arose on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman)and the new Clause of the
Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) was on a definite point. They concerned only those owners who were occupiers, but the statement made by the Minister leaves us all wondering whom he proposes to compensate. He was asked to compensate only those who were owner-occupiers, but presumably his intention is to compensate everybody in the slum area. Would it not be possible for him to ease our minds on that point and to give a specific answer as to what his intention is in regard to the people he proposes to compensate? Could not he say to us now if that is his intention: "I am willing to accept the Amendments that were moved, and my intention is to put in some words that would give compensation only to those owners who are owner-occupiers." If it be his intention to widen the wholes cope of the compensation Clause which we are discussing and to increase compensation to all owners of what is really slum property, I think that we ought to know it now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now on a Motion to report Progress, and we must not go into the merits of any proposal which the Minister may be about to make. The argument that we ought to report Progress in order that hon. Members may receive information by having an Amendment put on the Paper is permissible.

Mr. McENTEE: Will not our attitude be determined by the information which we ask the Minister to give us? I want to know just how far the Minister is intending to go. If he will not give an answer to that, I cannot compel him to, but he ought to give us some indication of the extent of the compensation he proposes.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish to support the Motion. This is not the first time to-day that the House has been in a difficulty, and I think it would have been helpful if either the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council had been here. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that a Motion to report Progress has often been moved in order to secure the presence of the Prime Minister. We have done the best that we could to allow the Minister of Health to carry on his work, but, after a most
unfortunate incident this afternoon, whereby the right hon. Gentleman has lowered the prestige of the House of Commons, we are now faced with a new situation. As I understand it, if the right hon. Gentleman is to implement the undertaking he has given to increase the public charge, it may mean another recommital of a re-committed Bill; and if he now does two in a day, we may have later on re-committals ad infinitum.
But my most serious point is this: At 10 minutes past seven to-night we began the discussion of this Bill. We have not yet reached the real Report stage. We have discussed two Amendments, and on one of them the right hon. Gentleman has landed himself in another trouble. I should like to know where the Government stand now in regard to the time given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. Some time ago, when I moved the adjournment of the Debate, I asked for an undertaking about further time. The Government have again wasted further time. The Committee now is in no mood to discuss the next very long new Clause of the right hon. Gentleman, which runs into hundreds, if not thousands, of words, and I should hope he will agree with this Motion to report Progress in order that he may clear his mind on the matter and be prepared to come to the House to-morrow and tell us what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the time that is to be left for the remaining stages of the Bill.
It is now 19 minutes past 10, though it is true that we have suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule. We have a short day to-morrow. We have about 30 pages of Amendments. We have achieved nothing to-day yet. I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to report Progress and come down to the House to-morrow morning with some statement as to the amount of time the Government are prepared to give to the remainder of the discussion on the Bill. If he will not do that to-morrow, I hope he may do it to-night. After all, this proposal was put to him four hours ago. No doubt he has had time to consult—indeed he is consulting the Chief Whip now, and I have no doubt he has had many consultations with him this evening, in view of the difficulties into which the Government have fallen. Perhaps he might be able to tell us
to-night how far he proposes to go, what additional time he proposes to give the House, and what additional compensation he is prepared to give the House over and above the time that has been wasted to-day owing to the Government's own mishandling of the problem. In the interests of the House it would be to the good if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to adjourn the Debate now and to report Progress and come to the House to-morrow morning with a reasonable programme of time to be given to the rest of the Report stage and for the full discussion of the Billon the Third Reading. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree with the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we should now adjourn in order that the right hon. Gentleman may collect his very scattered thoughts.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: The Government ought to accept the Motion to report Progress. The Minister of Health rightly said that the happenings in the earlier part of the day had no connection with what had taken place in the discussion of Clause 61. With that statement I am largely in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but what happened in the early part of the day ought to convince this House that a second mistake of a similar character ought not to be made. The right hon. Gentleman got up some time ago and accepted the suggestion which had been thrown out to him with regard to compensation under Clause 61. As one who sat for 19 out of the 20 days on the Committee, I agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that the right hon. Gentleman met the Committee courteously on every possible Amendment which came before him. But it would have been much better, when things were being thrashed out in the Committee and when sound reasons were being given both for and against the various Amendments, if the Minister of Health had had the courage to accept them on their merits and not have to capitulate as he has done tonight. As one who never really understood the vocabulary of Noble Lords until this evening, I believe that they have at least given some of us a lesson in tactics of how to extract concessions from Ministers on the Report stage. Taken as a whole the Government would
be wise to report Progress and come back to-morrow and tell us what the position is.
From one angle the Minister has a right to our sympathy. He has sat there to-day in very painful circumstances. He has been called upon to give decisions on various parts of our discussion and he has not had the help of any Member sitting on the Government Front Bench. We have not had the honour of seeing the Leader of the House in his place, nor have we seen the Prime Minister. I remember very vividly that four or five years ago it used to be a common practice to move to report Progress about three times a week when certain hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House used to play what I am almost tempted to describe in pit language because the Leader of the House was not present. We have been treated with scant courtesy this afternoon. We have been told that we have to humanise our discussions, and we have had references to characters from Dickens. But the House has not been treated with the courtesy it deserves owing to the fact that the Leader of the House has not been present and no Law Officer of the Crown has been prepared to assist the right hon. Gentleman. Here we are between 10 and 11 o'clock with the Minister not knowing clearly what his intentions are on Clause 61, when he and the Patronage Secretary are in doubt whether they are going to make another mistake or not, and one of the Law Officers of the Crown sits smiling instead of coming to the Box and trying to assist the Committee. On the whole, it would be for the benefit of the House if we cleared off this day's proceedings, if those responsible for drafting, and the Patronage Secretary, began to think out what is to be the procedure on the Bill, and they came back to-morrow and told the House frankly and fearlessly what the position is, and also told us that we are going to have adequate time for the discussion of the Bill. In the interests of good government the Government ought to accept the Motion. Let us get away to-night and start afresh tomorrow.

10.27 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot help feeling that what the Committee most desires is that we should clear the way in order to
return to the consideration of the Bill. I am sure the Committee will agree with me that really there is no reason why we should not begin consideration of the next Amendment. Let us make quite sure that what has occurred to-day will not result in any undue pressure upon the House or limitation of the time at its disposal for the consideration of this very important Measure. I am not going into the question of the responsibility for what I will call the lapse of time in the early hours of to-day's sitting. Undoubtedly a good deal of time has been devoted to the discussion of most interesting side issues not bearing on the merits of the Bill. If we were to adhere to our original time-table that would result in a restriction of the time available to the House for the discussion of the Bill. However, let me repeat the assurance that I gave to the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the day that if it proves as the proceedings of the House continue, to-day, to-morrow and Monday that there is any need for an extra day—there has really only been half a day available to-day; we have only spent about half the day on the discussion of the Bill—an extra day will be at the disposal of the House in order to enable us to give that full consideration to this Measure which it deserves. With that assurance I hope the Committee will desire to proceed with the consideration of the Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his Motion to report progress.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. PALING: The situation to-day reminds me of the situation that often used to crop up in the pits when I worked there. There were days when every thing seemed to go wrong. No matter what you did you could not do anything right. It strikes me that that has been the situation in the House to-day, particularly so far as the Minister is concerned. He has had a bad day. In the pit when we had nearly come to the end of our difficulties, the men used to say: "It is too late now to make a good day of it." I think that is the situation which applies at this moment in the House. I do not remember a day like to-day in all the years that I have been a Member of Parliament. It has been confusion from one end of the day to the other. Someone suggested that we should send for the Prime Minister. I am not sure that
it would have helped very much; he is not very adept at ridding the atmosphere of confusion. Perhaps it is now too late to ask for the Leader of the House, but I think it would be wise to adjourn now so that the Leader of the House can be made acquainted with what has happened, his advice taken, and we can then tackle the Bill in real earnest to-morrow. The record of the Minister of Health on this business is amazing. In the beginning of it all he said that you do not pay a butcher for selling bad meat.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting on to the merits of the Clause.

Mr. PALING: I was not going to discuss the Clause. I was only going to relate it to what happened when the Minister went down to the conference and immediately altered what he had previously proposed to do on the question of compensation because the conference turned him down. In the Committee upstairs several things were decided, but because two of his own supporters bring forward something against the Minister he accepts it, and then to create further confusion says that he is not going to accept other Amendments because he has changed his mind again during the evening. To-day has been the worst day we have ever had in Committee. In face of a record like that are we asking too much in asking that the Committee should now adjourn? I expect that the Patronage Secretary will have a lot to say to the Minister about this business. I do not want to rub salt into the wounds; I will leave them to settle their own quarrels, but I hope the Patronage Secretary will use his influence with the Minister to let us go home now and start afresh tomorrow.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like the Patronage Secretary to make it clear whether we are to understand that the Government are willing to give one further day for the discussion on this Bill. If the answer is in the affirmative and the Minister of Health will say how far he intends to proceed this evening we will withdraw the Motion to report Progress. The Motion was made in all sincerity and with a desire to help the Minister. He may have made a mistake in not accepting it and perhaps may lose many hours subsequently.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margeson): In order that there shall be no misunderstanding whatsoever, the Government have decided to give one extra day for the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister say how far he intends to go to-night?

Sir H. YOUNG: I hope to get to the end of the present Committee stage. The remaining Amendments occupy a good deal of space on the Order Paper, but there is nothing in them of a controversial nature.

Mr. LUNN: The Prime Minister this afternoon said that he did not propose that the House should sit many minutes after eleven, and then only in order to deal with the fag ends of the discussion.

Sir H. YOUNG: I had that point in mind. I meant such time as the House may reasonably be expected to sit.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On the understanding that the Minister desires to take only there committal Clauses but none of the new Clauses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 72.—(Interpretation and amendment of Act of 1925, s. 92.)

10.36 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, in page 57, line 2, to leave out "thirtieth day of September," and to insert "thirty-first day of October."
It will be remembered that on the discussion in Committee of this Clause, which deals with a reduction of the value of a house in respect of which an advance or guarantee may be made, from £1,500 to £800, it was suggested, I think by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss), that notice should be given as regards negotiations then afoot, because if the change in value came down from £1,500 to £800 as from the date of the passing of the Bill, a number of transactions not yet finished would be wasted. An Amendment was therefore conceded that the operative
date of the change should be 30th September, but it was pointed out that that was a holiday month, and therefore we have suggested that the change shall take place as from 31st October.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 78.—(Extension of power to make a closing order as to part of a building.)

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, in page 59, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert:
(1) The following Section shall be substituted for Section twenty of the Act of 1930—
'20. A local authority may under this Part of this Act take the like proceedings in relation to any part of a building which is occupied, or is of a type suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes, or in relation to any underground room which, by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act, is to be deemed to be unfit for human habitation, as they are empowered to take in relation to a dwelling-house, subject, however, to this qualification that, in circumstances in which, in the case of a dwelling-house, they would have made a demolition order, they shall make a closing order prohibiting the use of the part of the building or of the room, as the case may be, for any purpose other than a purpose approved by the local authority, but—

(a) the approval of the authority shall not be unreasonably with held: and
(b) the authority shall determine the closing order on being satisfied that the part of the building or the room to which it relates has been rendered fit for human habitation.'

(2) In Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1930 (which confers on persons aggrieved by any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) thereof a right to appeal to the county court) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (e)—
'(f) a withholding of approval in relation to the use of any purpose of premises in respect of which a closing order is in force.'
Members of the Standing Committee will remember the interesting discussion we had on the right of local authorities to close parts of dwelling-houses and the very complicated state of the law governing the subject owing to the provisions in the Acts of 1925and 1930. We accepted two or three Amendments, one
from the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and another from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss). We have embodied the effect of their Amendments here and made the law as simple as possible. This Amendment relates to any part of a building which is occupied by the working classes and not only, as provided in Section 20 of the Act of 1930, to any part of a building let as a separate habitation. The second point is that it covers any part of a house which, though not occupied, is suitable for occupation by the working classes. The third point is that it covers underground rooms falling under the terms of Section 18 of the Act of 1925. Fourthly, it enables a local authority to prohibit the use of the room or part of the building which is closed, except for purposes approved by the local authority and to prevent any unreasonable exercise of that power by the local authority it gives a right of appeal by the owner or occupier against such an order.

Mr. LOGAN: Am I to understand that under this proposal certain rooms which are not fit for human habitation may be closed but other portions of the building which are fit for human habitation may still be occupied?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is the law at present than any part of a house which is unfit for human habitation, if let separately, can be closed. This Amendment removes the condition as to being let separately and enables the local authority to close a part of a building for any purpose and to control the purpose and there is an appeal against any arbitrary action by the local authority.

Mr. LOGAN: I am aware of what the law is at present, but are we to understand that there is to be continuity as regards the closing of certain rooms which are not fit for human habitation while other portions of the house can still be occupied? Is that still to be the case?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, but under this proposal the purposes for which the closed part can be used, can be controlled. The rest can be occupied.

Sir P. HARRIS: Why was it necessary to re-commit the Bill in respect of these words, since there is no particular charge involved?

10.44 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: It is not necessary that I should answer for the Government as they are well able to answer for themselves, but, in reply to the hon. Baronet, I may remark that if the local authority has the power to close these rooms an indirect burden will fall upon them, as they will have to build more new houses to re-house the people who are turned out. I think that, through inadvertence in dealing with this very complicated Clause, the Government have not carried out the undertaking which they clearly gave in Committee. I moved an Amendment to bring into the general law a provision which now applies to Kensington only in regard to the closing of rooms. It is generally conceded that these special powers which Kensington obtained under a London County Council General Powers Act, have proved very valuable and that they ought to be extended. The Moyne Committee recommended in those terms, and I moved to that effect. One of the 'powers which Kensington has, which I certainly mentioned in my speech, is that it is, able to close underground rooms which are not habitually used as sleeping places. I suggested in my speech that that power, among others, should be extended to general legislation. Plainly, if a room is unfit and damp and altogether uninhabitable, even if it is not used habitually for sleeping, the local authority ought to have the power to close it, because it might be just as bad to live in for 16 hours a day as to sleep in for eight hours at night.
When I moved that Amendment in Committee the Under-Secretary said that he could not accept the actual wording but that he would accept the principle, and that he would like to look into the details. The confusion may possibly have arisen in this way. My Amendment was in two parts—amajor part and a consequential part The consequential Amendment was not put to the Committee because the Chairman said, "This is consequential." Everyone understood, however, and I am sure that the Minister meant to convey that he was accepting the whole thing and would make the Kensington power a general power. I raise the question at this stage because it is important that it should be included in the Bill and in order to give the Minister time to move an Amendment on the Report
stage. I am sure he will find that he has not carried out the undertakings he gave in Committee, and I am certain that he is as anxious as I am that that important provision should be incorporated in general legislation.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am at a loss to understand what is intended by this Amendment. I understand the English of it perfectly well, but I gather that this Bill is a measure to deal with housing, overcrowding, re-development and re-conditioning. If such a provision as is suggested suits London, it will not suit us in Liverpool. I am not able to visualise a house of which one part can be unfit for human habitation and can be closed, and in which other rooms can be considered to be fit. It seems to be a peculiar arrangement if a man, living in a room upstairs where he is able to see the sky through the roof, is told that he cannot stop there, but that the man down below is told that his house is all right because the roof had not come off yet. I am beginning to wonder how matters were dealt with in Committee upstairs, and I am not surprised at the disorganisation that has taken place here to-day. There is no place in the country that wants one part of a house to be considered fit for human habitation while another part of it is not fit. I can understand cellar dwellings being closed, but I cannot understand the first flood being closed and the attic being all right. This kind of arrangement, if it be an arrangement at all, appears to allow any particular floor in any particular section to be declared insanitary, but as long as they are barricaded off and people are prevented from getting into them everything in the garden is lovely. That is a funny kind of house. I do not know any place in the world where such an arrangement would be suitable from the point of view of accommodation.
I put a question to the Minister earlier, because I could not believe my ears when he said that rooms could be condemned and other rooms could not be condemned, cellars might be condemned but certain parts of these ramshackle, rotten old buildings were to be considered fit for human habitation. Anyone with any sense of humour knows this is not a slum clearance problem, but caravans and slum settlement, not housing at all. How any Minister dealing with the re-housing of
the people or the reconditioning of houses can ever put such a proposition forward I cannot understand. We are not supposed to be perfectly sane, I agree, on some things. We are dealing with thousands of houses in Liverpool, and we would never suggest, not even to enlightened Londoners, that this was the right and proper proposal to bring to the House of Commons. I have had no relationship in regard to this particular Bill with any Member of the House. If this is considered to be a housing proposition, whatever may be suitable for particular parts of London will not meet the view of the people in Liverpool. I would suggest that if this particular Clause were deleted altogether it would be much better. This is not an arrangement which would be satisfactory to anybody, and I wonder whether any Minister or any medical officer of health in any part of London or elsewhere, finding a house carrying on under the conditions mentioned here, would agree that it was fit for human habitation. It goes beyond my knowledge to understand how any Minister or any person in this House could be agreeable to anything of this kind. I am at a loss to understand the mentality which agrees with this kind of thing.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: On the first point; this Clause is recommitted because it may increase the rate charge. On the second point, I am advised that it does substantially give the Kensington powers. I will not say it deals with every single case but it meets any case that can be reasonably put up. Any underground room unfit for human habitation can be dealt with, and any underground room habitually used for sleeping purposes. When that is taken in conjunction with the other powers I think it meets substantially every point raised on the Committee stage.

Mr. LOGAN: What about the other rooms?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Member is always an original debater, but he is so original to-night that he disagrees not only with the powers given under the Act of 1925, passed by a Conservative Government, but with the powers given under the Act of 1930, passed by his own Government. I think he must introduce a housing Bill of his own.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I could introduce a better housing Bill than dais, but it is not my duty to do so. It is my duty, however, to point out that though this may meet the views of Kensington it does not meet the views of Liverpool. The Minister has no cause to be flippant about statements as to the insanitary condition of houses. We take credit to ourselves for being an intelligent assembly, but if in regard to the reconditioning of a house a medical officer ofhealth—or the Government itself—is going to declare that three parts of the house is insanitary and not fit for human habitation and one-quarter is fit for habitation, that is going beyond everything; and the flippant manner of the Minister shows that he would be better employed in managing a lunatic asylum than in dealing with housing.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I hope that a little further consideration will be given to the point which I raised, because when I brought it up in Committee I understood that the Government were going to deal with it in principle. I think it will be found that the Amendment which I have put down for the Report stage will cover the point. In some cases it may be a small point, but in other instances it may loom rather large. I hope that before we get to the Report stage the Government will look into the matter to see whether they can accept my Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 85.—(Amendments of Small Dwellings Acquisition, Acts.)

Amendment made: In page 63, line 16, leave out "thirtieth day of September," and insert "thirty-first day of October."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

11.5 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: Before we proceed with the proposed New Clause, which may lead to very prolonged discussion, I should like to know whether the Minister proposes to go beyond the formal moving of it or whether he proposes to finish it and the Amendments to-night, which may easily mean going far beyond the under-
standing. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten the Committee.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I may answer the right hon. Gentleman—

Dr. ADDISON: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: All the new Amendments stand in my name and the names of certain other hon. Members, and I propose, when the time comes, to ask leave of the Chair to treat them all as one. They all give rise to the same broad issue. A great number of them are drafting or consequential, and they therefore only represent one Amendment of real substance.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Solicitor-General will explain to the Committee the effect of the Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to apparatus of statutory undertakers in, land dealt with by local authority under the Housing Acts.)—[Sir H. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Sir H. Young.]

11.8 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The new Clause, as has been common with other Bills, has been the subject of a number of Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). As we told him, the subject matter of the Clause was being discussed between my right hon. Friend and the public utilities undertakings and I gave him to understand, although we could give no undertaking, that we hoped the result of the discussions, when it came before the House, would be accepted as reasonable. The subject matter of the Clause is damage done to apparatus, pipes, installations, and so on, of water, electricity or gas companies, as a result of the special powers conferred on local authorities for the widening or the diverting of streets, in furtherance of the objects under the Act of 1930and under the Bill. The Clause is formidable in length but is simple in structure. Perhaps I might mention the Sub-sections shortly, and point out what they deal with. Sub-section (1) empowers local authorities to move, alter and substitute any pipes or wires, in the making of new thoroughfares. Sub-section (2) provides
that if any dispute arises, the housing authority saying that a job ought to be done and the undertakers saying "No," it shall go to arbitration. Sub-section (3) provides that the local authority shall make reasonable compensation for damage sustained by undertakers by reason of the execution by the housing authority of works under Sub-section (1). Sub-section (4)enables the undertakers to call on the authority to remove pipes, wires, etc., and substitute others where it is necessary to remove pipes or wires and lay down some new ones. Subsection (5) is machinery and Sub-section (6) is an arbitration Clause. Subsection (7) deals with the position of statutory undertakers who may be similarly affected and gives them similar rights.
Before I sit down I may say that the principle of this Clause is that full compensation may be given either by way of money payment or by way of local authorities substituting new pipes. The general principle is that there should be no compensation for loss of profits, and that in so far as a local authority do no more than a private individual could do, namely, pull down houses which belong to them, they ought to be in no worse position than the individual. It follows from this that the obligation to carry outworks of alteration should be limited to cases where the authority are exercising powers, not open to an individual, of stopping up or altering streets. The argument was that a local authority ought not to be under a greater obligation than private persons. Then it would seem to us that if, as a result of the special powers devolving on local authorities damage was done to those undertakings, compensation should be awarded. Those are the lines on which the Clause is framed.

11.7 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think that this is an entirely new type of legislation. There is no precedent for it in regard to this subject matter. I would ask the learned Solicitor-General whether I am right, first of all, in the assumption that there is no precedent, and whether the analogy he has just given with regard to private land is at all pertinent to the consideration of this matter? These works which have
been placed in streets, and so on—electric-light cables, gas pipes and water pipes—have, I presume, been laid by virtue of Acts of Parliament, and make no charge or call upon the undertaker for any easement, as there would be a charge if the undertaker took his pipes over private land. Therefore, he is already in a privileged position as an undertaker running his works through what is substantially public land. He is not in the same position as someone who has purchased a right to be there. He is there as a matter of convenience to the public. If the public wishes, as a matter of public convenience, to alter the line of the roadway, that is not a matter for which he should get compensation. He is not in the position of someone who has purchased a right to be where he is, who owns the soil and who is disturbed against his will. He is a person who is given a power as a matter of public convenience to have his pipes laid along a public roadway and over public land, and surely if the public wishes as a matter of public convenience to move the line of pipes that should be regarded as one of the privileges of the position. The conception that you are here dealing with him as a man who has purchased the right to be where he is, that you are disturbing him in his right and that he is therefore to be compensated, is something absolutely unknown to our law, where you are dealing with pipes put into a public road which are subsequently moved for public convenience. I may be wrong, but I do not know of any other case where, in a matter of public convenience like this in dealing with slum areas, such a provision has been made for undereakers who have their pipes in a public road or a public place.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish in the first place to thank the Minister for having brought in this new Clause. When it has been read a Second time and we come to the Amendment stage I shall want to indicate in what direction I do not think it quite satisfactory. In the Committee I tabled a Clause and explained that I did that on behalf of the Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Associations, of which I happen to be a member. That Conjoint Conference represents, I think, every municipal and company gas, electricity and water undertaking, as well as certain other public
utilities. Therefore it is not in any kind of narrow selfishness that this view was put forward. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol says that because these people have got these great privileges and are allowed to put pipes and cables in the street, they have not much of a grievance if somebody destroys the street. Surely he must be aware that the public utility concerns are statutory companies and that although they are granted certain privileges they have imposed upon them, in consequence, a great number of liabilities and obligations. In the case of the gas industry they have that interesting system of the sliding-scale; and this applies also to a great number of electricity undertakings. There are many obligations upon these concerns. In some cases they are under a statutory obligation to supply in circumstances which are obviously unprofitable. It should be remembered, therefore, that as against this facility of having free land for their distribution systems they have heavy obligations imposed upon them. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will pay attention to what I am saying. What I am saying may not be as interesting as what he is saying but I am at least replying to his speech.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am really quite capable of hearing the hon. Member—even if I turn my head and talk.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I always thought there was something strange about the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says he can talk and listen at the same time, which is a strange thing; for the only organ of the human body which is incapable of doing two things at the same time is the ear. I know perfectly well, because I talk too much myself. The difference between me and the hon. and learned Gentleman is that I know it and he does not. Do not let us introduce questions of prejudice in this matter. In the London County Council area you have a county council functioning and performing certain duties as a housing authority and in the same area municipal bodies are providing gas, water and electricity. I am inclined to think that if the Stepney electricity undertaking, for instance, found a great many of their mains being destroyed through a housing scheme carried out by the London County Council they would naturally and properly expect the London County Council
to compensate them for the damage done. We have in the London area about 15 municipal electricity undertakings and it seems to me only perfectly right and proper—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think this proposal does not deal with the destroying of apparatus. It deals only with the question of removing or altering.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman in addition to being a barrister was also an engineer he would know perfectly well that if you put cables and pipes into a street and you afterwards pull them up what you pull up is nothing but a great deal of broken cast iron. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know what happens when you take up electric cables or water pipes? Perhaps that has not entered into his experience, but in all probability 90 per cent. of the economic value of what has been sunk in the streets is destroyed. You have the whole cost of excavation; you sink the cables, water pipes and so on in the street; you fill in the ground; you have to restore the surface; and it may well be that three-quarters of the expense is not the cost of what you put under the soil, but the cost of putting it there, and when it is taken up all that value is destroyed.
I am grateful to the Minister for having gone part of the way, but I would point out that there are three kinds of value involved. First there is the value of the mains, cables, waterpipes and so on that are buried in the streets, and which have to be pulled up when, as a result of these schemes, building lines and so on are altered. Next there is something of considerable importance, both to companies and municipalities. In recent years very strong pressure has been applied by Government Departments, the Electricity Commissioners, and otherwise, to assist people to have the advantages, for example, of the installation of electric light through assisted wiring schemes, either by some form of hire-purchase or by the payment of a little more for the current because the authority has provided the wiring. The houses are pulled down, and all this capital which has been sunk in them is destroyed. No one is going to place upon the gas company, the electricity undertaking, or the Metropolitan Water Board the responsibility for the bad houses; they have come to
try to improve the houses; but, having sunk a great deal of capital in them, if the houses are destroyed, for reasons which have nothing to do with them, all that capital is destroyed, without, as far as I can see, any compensation.
Further, there is the loss of effective business. If you have a lot of customers and their premises are destroyed, the business is lost. That may be one of the chances that you have to take in this world, and broadly speaking the public undertakings concerned maybe in a position in some cases to stand it; but I am told that in Great Yarmouth 20 per cent. of the customers of the gas undertaking are going to have their houses pulled down and they are going to be re-housed in an area outside the limits within which the gas undertaking is permitted to supply. Personally I have no connection with the gas industry, except that when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade I had something to do with the supervision of that industry, but it seems to me to be a tragedy to say to a public undertaking: "We are going to deprive you of a fifth of your customers, destroy their premises and re-house them elsewhere, outside the boundaries within which you are permitted to supply." That position is in no way met in this Clause, and, while I am grateful to the Minister for having met in part what I tabled in Committee, I hope there will still be some further opportunity for him to consider the arguments I have put forward, not on behalf of any narrow selfish interest, but on behalf of the whole of the municipal and company gas, water and electricity undertakings in this country. The Ministry of Health has been in active negotiation with the organisation to which I have referred. Matters of great public interest are raised in the hope that there will be a rather fuller consideration of these problems than has already been given to them.

11.20 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will deal with one or two of the points at this stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite asked whether there was any precedent. I am told, though he may not regard it as a precedent, that in local legislation there are many precedents providing for compensation for disturbance of this kind for specific work. He said that a public utility undertaking,
when it receives permission to lay pipes in the street, does not have to pay for the right of passing over private property, and that, therefore, if the public utility company want to put their pipes somewhere else why should they receive compensation. I do not think that that is quite the right way to put it. The public utility undertakings perform functions that we desire, and many of them have expressed obligations put upon them to provide a particular service. They also have a monopoly. I do not want to put them too much on one side or the other, but they are entitled to decent treatment. A local authority may say to the public utility company, "Here is a place for you to lay your pipes at your expense for the supply of water, gas or electricity." The next year, or even five years later, the authority concerned may change their policy and say, "We do not want your pipes here but somewhere else; it is quite true that we told you to lay your pipes here, and that other concerns in other parts of the country are not being put to this particular expense and inconvenience, but we think that these pipes should go somewhere else." We think that where a change of policy under the powers conferred by this Bill results in that particular form of damage to the undertaking affected by diversion of this kind, reasonable compensation should be paid in respect of this special instance of damage falling upon a particular undertaking as a result of something which is desired to be done. What the hon. and learned Gentleman said about it not being a case of right of way, or something of that sort, really did not seem to be relevant to the consideration which made us put this Clause forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has raised in his speech the points contained in his Amendments, and it may be for his convenience and that of the Committee, if I deal with them now, and we can, subject to what you may say, Sir, divide on them without discussing them separately. He really raised two points. He said that these undertakers, particularly electricity and gas undertakers, in order to bring electricity and gas into the houses of the working-classes, have in fact themselves paid for the wiring and piping and have charged a higher sum for the use and consumption of gas and elec-
tricity than is charged to people who pay for the wiring and piping themselves. When a house like that is pulled down, there is some sabotage; the pipes are there, and there is loss. My right hon. Friend gave the matter very serious consideration, and on the whole we thought that that item ought not to be included. They take the risk that the house may be pulled down either under such a scheme as this or by the owner.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In the ordinary way there is some contract or arrangement, but this is a case where there is statutory interference. Somebody comes along and says to the owner: "You must pull it down." If he had pulled it down of his own volition compensation would have followed automatically.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I doubt that. I stand to be corrected, but I have taken pains to inform myself, and I doubt if there is any provision for compensation being paid to an owner who for reasons of his own convenience pulls his property down. In introducing a new principle we went as far as we thought it would be right to go, and we are giving compensation where damage results in the way set out in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon referred to the effect brought about by the change in population as a result of clearance schemes, and mentioned one particular case, which I cannot but think is an abnormal one, where 20 per cent. of the customers of a gas undertaking were, as the result of a slum clearance scheme, to be taken out of their area. Of course, no change can be adopted without causing some dislocation and no dislocation can take place without producing some hardships. Let me illustrate my argument by way of analogy. Take the policy which for many reasons has been pursued by successive Governments—many people think that it would be a good thing if it could be extended—namely, that of transferring people from the depressed areas to other parts of the country. Any move of population of that kind, whether due to economic causes or to practical policy initiated in this House, involves some hardship, say, to the retailers and possibly the producers in the area from which the population moves. It is clearly a case of hardship to an undertaking if 20 per cent. of its customers are removed
from its area, but we do not think that it would be possible to deal with this matter except in the way laid down in the Bill. We have done our best to meet the situation, but we have not been able to extend in the way that my hon. Friend would like. We are grateful to him for his congratulations on what we have done, and in the circumstances I hope that he will not press his Amendment.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I agree with the view expressed by the Solicitor-General, but the language of the Clause is not absolutely clear on a very important point. I refer particularly to subsection (3), the first sentence, which provides that:
A local authority shall make to statutory undertakers reasonable compensation for any damage which is sustained by them by reason of the execution by the authority of any works under Sub-section (1) of this section and which is not made good by the provision of substituted apparatus.
I have no doubt as to the intention of the Solicitor-General and the Government. There should no possible doubt in the mind of local authorities or anybody else. I have consulted one or two authorities, and their view of the matter is that the wording is open to doubt. When houses are cleared a local authority may decide to instal electricity for lighting purposes in place of gas, and it may be that they would have to make a payment to the statutory undertaking for "any damage" they may have suffered as a result of the action of the local authority. I maintain that the words "any damage" might be interpreted to cover loss of profit which a statutory undertaking might sustain in that way. I have an amendment to cover the point, but I do not want to move it provided the Government will alter the wording themselves or make a statement as to the real meaning of the Clause and that there is no doubt at all on the matter.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: I support what has been said with regard to the measure of compensation which the Government have seen fit to give to these public utility companies. So strong is their case that as regards the actual physical damage to their property in the streets the Government have completely met it. Indeed, their case is unanswerable. Not
only can they go nowhere but down the street, but they have a legal liability to supply. I submit that there is a real case for reconsideration with regard to what is called the gas carcasing and the electrical wiring. I would press upon the Government the argument that it is strongly in the public interest that these undertakings should be encouraged to make these services available for these poor neighbourhoods. In many cases it has been the provision of gas and electricity which alone has made these old houses habitable at all. Anything which makes a company or a municipality chary of sinking large sums of capital in these services in the poorer class of houses is to be deplored. The standard of housing is rising, and houses which no one would now suggest would come within the provisions of a Bill like this may easily come within its provisions in five or 10 years time. The proportion of capital in the case of the gas industry and the electricity industry which goes in distribution is much higher than possibly many persons may suppose. Therefore, it is a very serious matter for the companies if they find themselves with a large mass of capital thrown away and they receive no compensation for it. No moral question arises. I cannot think that any one imagines that the companies or undertakings are in any way responsible. They are all limited as to the profits they can make. No question of landlordism or anything of that kind arises. It is merely a matter of business assessment of the damage that is done to the public utility undertakings.
I ask the Minister whether he cannot offer some compromise on that point. We all appreciate the force of the case made in the particular instance of Yarmouth. I do not know whether the figures given can be substantiated, but there is a grievance in the case quoted. A good many of us feel that these movements of population, though they may be accentuated by Bills of this sort, are more or less a business risk, but I believe that in the case of shops even the Government's own legislation does admit the possibility of compensation where, as a result of their scheme, a very large reduction of population takes place. But suppose we say that it is very nearly an
ordinary commercial risk. I do submit that the other damage is one which should be considered on a par with actual physical damage to mains in the streets:—the value of pipes torn out of houses cannot seriously be considered. I saw an un-legal twinkle in the eye of the Solicitor-General when he was referring to that matter. It cannot be that there is any valuable portion of a company's capital that has been sunk in those services and that remains in a case of demolition.
But I think it will be agreed that as a result of any large-scale clearance public utility undertakings do suffer considerable damage, and as I read the Clause that damage will not be met by the Bill. No compensation will be given to the people, who have no responsibility for the evils that are being dealt with, who have done something to improve them, and whose good will in all future housing in poor districts it is essential to retain. In those circumstances I hope that the Minister, who has shown such a fair-minded consideration of cases on their merits, will consider this case also. The Committee will remember that in many of these cases there will not only be an effect on the dividend. If a heavy cost is put upon the company or undertaking in this way the result in many cases will simply be an increase in the price of the commodity.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 33, after "any," to insert "loss or."
I have already stated, in substance, the case for this Amendment and I would only reply to one point made by the Solicitor-General. He said that in these cases there would be a good deal of salvage. I assure him that if wires and pipes which have been buried in the plaster of walls are torn out and pendants which have been fixed into ceilings are removed, the salvage will not be worth much. The refusal of this Amendment means refusing to these people compensation for the loss of installations which they have put into other people's houses for the purpose of providing facilities, not otherwise available. Broadly speaking, what will be left in
these cases will be what engineers call "junk" and it will only have a "junk" value. Therefore if the Solicitor-General refuses the Amendment, it means saying, in effect, to people who have put their property in the form of wires and pipes, into other people's houses "You are going to be robbed by Act of Parliament of the value of that property."

Amendment negatived.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in line 89, at the end, to insert:
(8) No compensation shall be payable under this section in respect of any loss of income occasioned by the removal or alteration of any apparatus.

11.43 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We think that the Clause as it stands is all right in this respect. Our intention, which I explained in reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is quite obvious. The hon. Member will notice that Sub-section (3) of the proposed new Clause provides for compensation for damage which is sustained by reason of the "execution of any works" and not the exercise of any power by the authority. A point has been raised as to the relation of this provision to any consequential loss which might result and we shall certainly look into the matter but at present we think
that the Clause in this form achieves our intention.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

TITLE.

11.44 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out the words "areas in large towns" and to insert "urban areas."
This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which was made in Committee to extend the redevelopment powers under the Bill from areas in large towns to all urban areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported [Title amended]; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.